As I continue to gather my thoughts on the 1-2-3 project I view my artifact as more powerful every day. I am not a fan of my artifact. It removes my instructional assistant from my classroom and it brings me little information of use (more on this in the project), but its power seems to grow as I analyze my own feelings and try to project how other faculty members may view it. Since it is put into circulation with my name on it, it appears as if I support this artifact when in truth I feel very differently about it.
So as it grows in power I wonder how I will be able to project a neutral stance as I begin the interview process. Will I be able to not tell others what to think of this form? As proved in class with some dramatics I do not want others to tell me what to think when they present me with written words. Yet, here I sit, convinced that I will be projecting my own resistance to my artifact when trying to remain neutral. Will I be capable of interpreting and prying another’s experience with my artifact from them without influencing their words? Since my artifact may be viewed as legal documentation will they read me as policing their use of the artifact due to my own positioning?
These reflections make me realize that disclosing my purpose, if not my own position, may help the faculty I am choosing to interview. Although I still say I enjoyed the reading of the Urban Hotel chapter because the position of Judy Hunter was not explained, I weigh the value of disclosing my own purpose. My ultimate purpose might be to eliminate the artifact, or re-design the artifact, but I am challenged by finding a way to make the interviewees more receptive to answering my questions without "bashing" the artifact. Will I find a way to place myself in their position, define my purpose and remain neutral? It will be my goal, though my learning curve may well be more curvy depending on the answers I receive.