Monday, May 11, 2009
Reflecting on writing for Project Angel Heart
Now that you have completed your oral history narrative for Project Angel Heart, I’d like you to reflect about your experience writing for a non-profit organization. First, describe what you did for this project. What was it like writing for a non-profit organization? How did you collaborate with your partner? Then, reflect on the differences between writing for Project Angel Heart and performing other kinds of service. How did writing for the organization differ from preparing or delivering meals? What did you learn about writing, rhetoric, and/or research by completing this project?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For this project, I wrote Erin Pulling’s transcription and narrtive. Writing for an outside organization was a little different because I had to keep in mind the fact that other people, besides just my teacher and me, were going to read it. I realized that I was writing more for the real world and the public good and it was nce to be part of a practical application of writing. Steffi and I collaborated on doing the interviews, but we didn’t really collaborate much on each other’s writing process. The difference between volunteer work and writing for PAH was that volunteering connected you with on client, or, tangentially but less tangibly, many clients and the other assisted the organization as a whole. I felt more helpful doing the writing as I was able to add my own touch to the work I did and because I saw it as helping the organization to grow and gain more clients. Now of course, volunteers would be needed to help the additional clients, but I feel that my skills in non-profit work as more on the side of administration and work done for the organization, rather than the clients. This is not to say one kind of work is more important than another, but rather that I prefer and am better at one over the other.
ReplyDeleteFor this project, I wrote the oral history of an experienced delivery driver for Project Angel Heart. It was interesting writing about him, because he had been with the organization since it had started at St. Barnabas church, and hearing his praises on how well PAH has developed and how much it has grown really put into perspective the amount of time and dedication needed to get a non-profit such as this off the ground. My partner and I collaborated more during the interviews rather than after; we both asked each interviewee questions and helped the conversation along, but we did the writing separately.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really ever think to compare this writing assignment to other kinds of service; I never considered the writing of the paper as a type of service. But if I stop to think about it, we did write these for PAH, for their anniversary, for their use, and so it was important for us to tell the story of the interviewee and shed some good light on the organization. Writing for the organization is a very different type of service than preparing food or delivering meals. The writing serves as a help to the background of the organization, the people behind the scenes, the people doing the organizing. While preparing and delivering are more up-front types of service, contributing to the cause of the organization, rather than to the organization itself.
Writing a paper with an interview as the only research/outside source was a very different experience for me. I am used to using multiple sources, quoting, citing, and the expanding on their ideas. When writing from an interview, you have to really be careful, because you have their first-hand account, and are obligated to do their story justice, without the help of other sources to confirm or contrast what they are telling you. You must take everything they say with a grain of salt, and make sure the paper is not biased, while most other research papers usually are biased-arguing one side or another and using sources to back up that claim. In this type of writing there is no claim, just a person's story.
I liked writing for a nonprofit for the oral history project. It was interesting in that it was a type of service work that I haven’t done before. I didn’t really feel like I was doing service work, because the people I was in contact with were not necessarily those in need of my help. I know that our papers are important in that they will be used in Project Angel Heart’s twentieth anniversary celebration, but the papers themselves are not important to PAH’s mission. We were not providing a necessary service to those who would not be able to provide that service for themselves, because PAH is capable of doing this type of project themselves; it would just take time and volunteers. Doing the kitchen and delivery shifts felt more like service work because we were directly helping PAH’s clients, who are the ones in need.
ReplyDeleteI learned about research in this project because I haven’t done an oral history project before, so the interviewing process was new to me. This is valuable experience, because I’m sure I’ll need to conduct another interview at some point in my academic career. I learned about what questions to ask and how to read an interviewee, and I also learned the frustrations of the transcribing process. I think that if I were to do an interview again I would not transcribe the whole thing, but rather pick out the important parts and transcribe only those. Overall the experience was useful and mostly enjoyable.
I ended up liking writing this oral history piece. I thought it was going to be challenging trying to bring the different aspects of David Alexander’s story together and write a cohesive narrative but I found that once I sat down and started writing, it kind of all fell into place. I know that when I write I should always consider what audience I’m writing for, but as I was writing this piece I realized that I don’t usually. I constantly had to remind myself who I was writing for and what they wanted from the piece.
ReplyDeleteZach and I didn’t really collaborate during our writing. The most that we did together was when I was trying to reconstruct the interview with David from memory and Zach helped me remember some of the details.
The biggest difference for me in writing for a non-profit as opposed to doing actual service work was the permanence of it. Working in the kitchen and delivering meals had a very immediate impact. The people were helped that day or in that week, whereas the writing will last for much longer. The writing that we did will be used in association with Project Angel Heart’s anniversary but it will not be erased and forgotten after that. Those stories that we wrote—the stories of actual individuals—have the potential to touch and impact lots of people.
For this project, Jenna and I worked on the interviews, but mainly wrote our narratives separately. However, we are planning on swapping our narratives so that both of us can read what the other person wrote. In the process, neither of us influenced the other’s writing. When I began writing, I knew how I wanted to start the paper, but I didn’t really know where to go from there. Part of it was that I didn’t know how much history of Project Angel Heart should be in the paper. The other problem was that I had trouble connecting the different ideas from the interview. Because we were writing for a non-profit organization, I felt that I had to portray the organization in a good light. However, it was hard to write about the organization from a board member’s point of view because the organization seemed so business-like. Trying to portray it as a “non-profit” from that perspective was more difficult. I think that I managed to accomplish that by picking through the interview and finding the important quotes.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference I saw between writing for Project Angel Heart and volunteering for them was that I actually felt much closer to the organization after the interview. I think that this was because while volunteering I felt sequestered from the rest of the organization because I was a one-time volunteer. Also, talking to two board members allowed me to really see the big picture of the organization. For me, that was more enlightening than working in the kitchen or driving around Denver. I learned a lot from this project about writing a narrative because it was so different from anything I’ve ever done. From this project, I learned that you really have to have an audience in mind when you write. I found myself wondering how the people at Project Angel Heart would feel about the specific words I was writing and what I was saying.
I thought that this assignment had more pressure than the average writing assignment because I had to fulfill the needs of the organization and do the interviewees justice. Kelly and I finished both interviews feeling like we had just met some wildly interesting and upstanding people. The only collaboration that Kelly and I had was during the interviews. We would both ask questions and take notes. After the interviews we would converse briefly about how cool the people were. Then we split up and we each transcribed one interview and wrote a paper off of it. We didn’t even share our notes we took during the interviews. However, I think this method worked really well for us. We benefitted during the interviews and when it came time to write we each had plenty of material and did not need to be concerned about the desires of the other writer. This writing assignment was immensely different than performing other service work for the organization. In both the kitchen and delivery shifts we were told exactly what to do and what not to do. In this assignment we had much more liberty, and in many ways it made it more challenging. When we were given that amount of freedom it was much harder to anticipate what would be appreciated and what would not be. In completing this rather challenging assignment, I realized how hard it is to please a crowd. It is a challenge to write to an audience other than a professor who spells out what they want from you. When writing for Project Angel Heart there were many more variables and places to go wrong and displease the intended audience.
ReplyDeleteCayla and I worked on this piece together from the beginning. We have many of the same classes, so it was fairly easy to schedule the two interviews. We worked well together at the interviews with both of us asking questions and each taking notes for one of the interviews. It was interesting for me to compare the stories from our interviewees to my own experiences working with Project Angel Heart. I have to say I enjoyed my own work more because I felt like I was being more helpful, but it was also good for me to hear the other stories, because they showed such passion for the work that they did; it was very inspiring.
ReplyDeleteCayla and I also worked together writing the oral histories. Being science majors, it was difficult for us to put down more than just the bare facts and elaborate on the stories. With both of us working on it, however, it turned out alright and we managed to exceed the suggested paper length. I noticed some differences between the way Cayla and I like to write our papers. I prefer to make it as good as I can the first time around so that I don’t have much to do when I go back to revise. Cayla prefers to get down the general ideas she wants to talk about and worry about transitions, word choice, etc. later. These differences did not impede our writing process, however.
Writing for an outside organization as opposed to just a class did not seem to be too different for me. All I had to do was get the audience in my mindset and write as I usually do. The style was somewhat different, but it was not on an entirely different level from what I normally do. However, this project was a great learning experience and gave me some practice at practical writing for the real world.
To be honest I approached writing the narrative the same way that I approached writing any of my other papers. I really didn't think about that fact that I was writing the paper for anyone else other than myself. Of course I considered who the audience was for my paper, but I didn't think about it any more than I had for my first paper. I enjoyed writing this paper, I felt like there was much more freedom than our first paper. Sean and I really didn't collaborate during the drafting of the paper. We talked about what we were planning to write and how the paper was going to be laid out, but we didn't consult each other for every step of writing the paper. It was nice to have someone who had done the interview with me though, because he knew the material that I had to work with, which was helpful. Writing this paper for PAH had a much more distant feel than actually going into the organization and either delivering food or working in the kitchens. As I said earlier, I didn't approach the paper differently so it didn't feel to me like I was doing a service to the community. When delivering the meals or helping in the kitchen, I felt like I had a much more tangible connection with helping people with life threatening diseases. Writing the papers helped PAH, which in turn helped people with life threatening illnesses, so I felt like the connection was less direct. This was the first time that I used an interview that I conducted in my paper so that process was interesting. I had to do the interview, and then transcribe it which was very time consuming. I then I had to pick the parts from the interview that would be used in the personal narrative. The entire process was new to me, but I enjoyed doing that kind of research and writing.
ReplyDeleteDoing the oral histories for Project Angel Heart was a new experience for me. Going off campus and interviewing two strangers was something I had never done before. It was a more enjoyable form of research though, then spending time in the library looking for books and articles. After interviewing two long time volunteers for the organization, I transcribed one of the interviews and Kelsey transcribed the other. Then, mostly together, we sat down and wrote the histories. After a few drafts and much editing and revision, we finally completed these oral histories. The entire process of interviewing, transcribing, and writing took many hours, but knowing that our work was going to benefit a respectable non-profit organization was motivating. It made the work seem worthwhile, since it was not just for a grade.
ReplyDeleteThe writing process was different from preparing and delivering meals mostly because during the writing process we were taking a step back from actually working in the field. The work we did during our kitchen and delivery shifts was more direct, whereas we could not immediately see the impact from our writings for the organization. From this project, I learned how to piece together and interpret information obtained through interviews, writing for an audience other than professors and classmates.
For this project, I wrote about Sandy Nagler's ten year experience with Project Angel Heart. During this assignment, Leah and I only really collaborated on doing the interviews. We didn't really do much else like writing together or editing together. I thought writing for the organization was pretty difficult because there is more pressure to tell a good story and to show the person in a good light. You don't want to mess anything up because this is meant for an audience that is really connected and dedicated to the organization. I also didn't want to mess up the image of Sandy. I wanted to write something that would honor her and her work and wouldn't mess up the facts. It was intimidating to write this paper but I feel like it turned out pretty well and Project Angel Heart will benefit from theses.
ReplyDeleteWriting for the organization was very different than actually volunteering because we are the only people, as far as I know, who are writing for the organization. Writing for the organization definitely is more for the organization than it is for us because there will definitely benefit from the work where as other volunteering is more reciprocal because it makes you feel good knowing you're really helping people in need. That sounds very cynical and selfish which is not what I intended but I don't know how else to say it.
This paper was actually a very enriching experience in writing because it was something that I've never done before. I've never written something based off of an interview and I have not really written much for an audience other than professors or peers. It has definitely improved my writing and even though it has been difficult, it's been a good experience.
I personally enjoyed this writing assignment. Kathryn and I got to meet and interview some very friendly and interesting people who willingly gave us a look into their lives and experiences with Project Angel Heart. This process went fairly smoothly – we worked together to schedule interviews, and within the interviews we fairly quickly developed a method of working together to obtain information. The day of our interviews we spent most of the day together, which worked well because we had plenty of time (on the bus, over lunch) to discuss how we wanted to go about the interviews, figure out how to work the recording device, decide who would write each history, etc. I also liked hearing about our interviewees experiences with Project Angel Heart because I am interested in doing non-profit work. It was nice to be the interviewer (versus a third-party observer) because I had the freedom to ask more questions and get more depth on the areas that interested me.
ReplyDeleteThe writing itself was enjoyable as well. I liked that the piece was not as formal as other writing pieces and that we could be more creative. It was also helpful to know that the writing would actually be read an audience outside of my classmates and professor, which is not typical of most school writing and made the project seem more real and applicable. When I was writing, I was thinking mostly about the person I interviewed and how he might react upon reading what I said about him. I wanted to represent him as accurately as possible and do his story justice. When we did our peer interviews at the beginning of the quarter, I was a bit surprised when I read the one about me. It was not inaccurate; I just felt that it was not quite what I expected, or was not quite how I would represent my own life. I wanted to let Al’s story come through in the truest way possible and not put too much of my own spin on it, as if he were telling the story himself.
It was cool to think of writing as a form of service – I never really thought of it that way before. As I was writing the piece, however, I wasn’t really thinking of it as service. It was just another writing assignment. I know that it is an important thing for the organization, but it still doesn’t really feel like serving and making a difference. For this reason, I think I prefer the more “direct” sort of service, or volunteering at the organization itself. Sure, anyone can do that kind of work while writing is slightly more specialized, but I feel that volunteering in the kitchen or driving produces more tangible results and helps the people who really are in need most directly.
I began the oral history project confident that as a writing assignment, it wouldn’t be too difficult, even as piece for a nonprofit organization. The narrative format, informal writing style, and rather straightforward concept all led me to believe the paper would be fairly simple. After collaborating with Emily and deciding that we would each write the narrative on one of our interviewees, and discussing the type of questions we waned to ask, this belief was reinforced. In addition, even after interviewing two members of Project Angel Heart with Emily, I still believed this to be true. Considering how obliging and eager the interviewees were to share, and how easy it was for Emily and me to decide whose narrative we would like to write, it seemed the narrative would be no problem.
ReplyDeleteAs it turned out, however, this was not the case for me. I should have taken into consideration my past narrative-writing experiences, most of which were not easy for me and did not turn out well. While this particular narrative was not quite as bad as some of my previous ones, I had still had difficulty with the writing process. Though straight-forward in its purpose, I found it extremely challenging to try and merge so many stories, and so much information, in a narrative like paper. I could not figure out the balance my tone and voice should have. In class, I did the exercise on what mood I wanted my paper to convey, yet when it came to the actual writing, I found it very challenging to do that.
The format of my interview with Bev Booth was somewhat repetitive, and while she shared many stories, she did not give much detail about any of them, and there were huge chunks of information missing. While I realize this is a result of my own interviewing skills, it showed me how writing for a non-profit can be. The oral history project, though seemingly so straight forward, was actually really difficult. I couldn’t be completely creative, yet I also could not be informative, and merely retell the stories in a stylistic way. I could not merely praise Bev as an individual, nor could I simply praise Project Angel Heart as a collective organization. Instead, it seemed the whole paper was a delicate balancing act. I had to be informative yet also be reminiscent, celebratory and story-like, and I had to somehow celebrate the history of a now huge organization through the stories of one woman. I had to attempt to write clearly and in a way, beautifully, yet the words could not dominate the purpose of the piece. For, it was not simply creative writing, yet it was not a history report either. Needless to say, I had a difficult time balancing all these things.
Of course, I knew writing as volunteerism would be far different from chopping potatoes or delivering meals just because it would require more effort and thought, but I did not expect it to be so much more difficult. I knew it would not merely be “doing” but also thinking. So, since I enjoyed my experiences chopping and delivering for Project Angel Heart, I expected to enjoy writing for them as well, as that seemed to be as straight-forward and as simple as chopping. However, after actually writing for them, I realized how difficult writing for a non profit is. I learned just how daunting writing for a purpose through a balancing approach can be. For, because it is merging the academic with the nonprofit, writing for Project Angel Heart was, for me, like trying to be a circus star, balancing on a thread like rope. It was, decidedly, an uncomfortable experience.