For my subgroup project, I decided to observe a group of teenage boys. Located at the intersection of Fullerton and central. The location seemed like any other McDonalds except the arrangement of the sits. They have a wide range of chairs and furniture located in the side of the entrance while the front part was wide. My subgroup was located in the side of the McDonalds near the restrooms. The methods I used were participant observation, informal interviewing, and formal interviewing. While I conducted my observations on Tuesdays and Thursdays. On October 8, 2013 from 3pm to 4:30pm, October 15 2013 from 3pm to 4:30pm, October 17 2013 from 3pm to 6pm and October 22 2013 from 3 to 6pm. My data collections used were participant observation, informal interviewing, formal interviewing, key consultants, and mapping.
During my interactions with my subgroup I noticed several patterns which distinguished them from everyone else in the McDonalds. For instance the subgroup consists of only male participants. There were no women participating in the practice. When I asked my consultant about why that was he answered “cus girls make too much noise and they got a different part it’s like they go for elders and we do it for the kids. We all get together later. It’s all the same kinda...but there on the other side of the building” as I observe and they got into the topic an informal interview took place one of the members stated that “girls now see more competition in guys and they can’t handle them when they bring the jam” everyone agreed and laughed.
Later would occur such as the members having different set of index cards with labels. At sight it resembled regular note taking, however up close a rather interesting method emerge. It had three stages of approval in which all participants had a voice. First they would classify it as stage 1 the interaction which means every member of the group had to write down ideas and methods of improving the outcast of the play. It was a way to improve and show their point. Second stage was evaluation they would see what part in the notes had meaning or truth and would discuss on whether things would change or simply erased. Third was named joker and it is because the stage allowed them to play around with the ideas and critics each other’s point of view.
Over all nothing would get approve unless their “top Dog” approved it. The fact that this took place on every occasion showed the sign of seniority and class in away. The subjects discuss the verdict taken by their leader while not complaining even if they disagree, in rare occasions someone would disagree yet would almost always be rejected and their point would only be taken into consideration. The members would act as if nothing had happen and move on. Once they practiced you noticed how the group was divided in two smaller groups for instance.
The ‘TOP DOG’ would be observing and doing comments on how to improve. He was on top of the pyramid below him were...