Response to Zollo

I enjoyed reading this field study because of the topic, it was very unique to read about the behaviors and customs of truck stops and regular truck drivers. Before reading this, I did not even realize that “truck stops” existed. A component I noticed from this study is how it was written, the writer wrote it in a way that felt like a narrative rather than a study report, while still managing to keep it informative and personal to their own beliefs at the same time. For example, the writer explains that his beliefs and hypothesis about the truck stops are similar to what was observed and collected from observations and conversations. The writer conveys a story while still keeping it informative to the field study, but what I enjoyed the most was that it stayed true to his own standards as the writer managed to add his feelings about his observations and moments into the field study, as well as adding the observations and the people and places he had interviewed.

Additionally, the writer’s incorporation of dialogue and detailed use of descriptions further creates a narrative-type of paper than an informative report. The writer’s voice was genuine and very apparent throughout the paper and his opinions made it seem intriguing. I found the concluding statements a bit problematic because of his exclusion of a certain group in this community he was observing. While his comparison of truck drivers to cowboys is very interesting and an idea that can easily be agreed with from the way they were described in this study, I very much did not like the statement made about truck drivers purely being masculine. Although the writer considers the women in this community, it is not explained why they were left out of the field since he was observing truck drivers and not male truck drivers. Overall, the study was very interesting and a different topic that initially sparked my interest.

House of Homeless Response

Compared to the Zollo field study report, I was more intrigued with House of Homeless because it felt like more of a narrative than a report with the vivid imagery included, the personal anecdotes, the dialogues and the author’s opinions added to the study. As the author started out explaining the reasoning behind her choice of the field study topic, homelessness, it felt as though I was reading a narrative about her rather than about the epidemic that exists in the city I presume to be New York City. This choice of opening the study report with a personal anecdote that explains why she decided to study homeless people made the reading intriguing because it successfully used ethos from the rhetoric to convey persuasion through empathy. Additionally, I found this reading to be much more enjoyable than Zollo’s solely because it is a topic I am personally interested, and I was thinking about exploring in some way for my later fieldworking assignment for this course.

The way the author also integrated her opinions and feelings with what she was noticing and observing about the place she was in and the people she would interview was another stylistic choice that also stood out to me. Through her detailed-oriented sentences and vivid imagery, it was easier to imagine her perceivement of the scenery and moments she experienced. Additionally, I liked the fact that she included the stigma amongst homelessness, and the stereotypes that many seem to believe, including her friends, which she pointed out at the beginning of her report. She used these stereotypes to counter it through the way she described the homeless people she interviewed as just people human like anyone one else, with hopes and dreams that have come with failures and mistakes.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.