Search the Collection
-
Item Type >
Oral History
(remove)
Limit your search
Collection
Item Type
Result Type
Featured
Text
-
(3)
-
1
2
3
(2)
-
(1)
-
Carolyn Brehm is currently the Vice President for global government relations at
Procter & Gamble. She has previously worked as a Vice President of Orbis
International and as a director of Asia Trade Policy and Strategies at General Motors
for 14 years.
She attended Georgetown University where she studied East Asian Studies/Chinese.
She landed her first job at the US China Business Council where she was then
offered a deal by GM to set up GM’s first office in China since 1949, when all of the
foreign companies exited during the Chinese Revolution.
(1)
-
Ms. Chou’s mission was to help people through uncovering human rights
violations by bringing them into the spotlight. She is fulfilling this through her work
in founding and having been the Deputy Director of Programming at Radio Free Asia,
a network that reports on news that the mainstream news media does not cover.
Although she has recently retired, she is now starting to work with the Human Rights
Network, which is also centered around acknowledging human rights violations in
order for them to be fixed.
Her mission relates to women's roles in US-Asian relations because of her
part as a woman in acknowledging human rights violations. Many times, women
suffer from these violations, which Ms. Chou works to bring to the public’s attention.
For example, one man Ms. Chou worked with was protesting against forced abortions
to meet the quota for China's one family one child policy, something that infringes
upon a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.
From Ms. Chou, we learned that her Confucian society often discouraged
her from becoming a career woman, which was an idea that was thoroughly discussed
in class. Confucian society enforced harsh gender roles that women are supposed to
remain unseen and in the home. According to Confucian society, women’s primary
roles are to fulfill domestic responsibilities such as cleaning, cooking, and childrearing. In addition, women are expected to remain mostly subservient, all while the
husband works for the family as the primary bread-winner.
Ms. Chou covered lots of new information we had not previously covered
in class. Her advice focused mostly on not letting disadvantages get in the way of
pursuing one’s dreams. She firmly stated during the interview that hard work got her
where she is, and being a female minority did not play a role in hindering or helping
her progress.
During out interview, we began by asking questions about Ms
Chou's background because we wanted to gain context about her life. She is
an accomplished individual and we wanted to find where her inspiration and
drive came from. We also wanted to know how she went about achieving her
life goals. The most interesting thing about our interview is that she went into
great detail while answering our short prompts--we think that this is due to her
background in journalism. Every answer she provided for us was extremely
insightful, and on our end, we did a lot of active listening. For example, when
we asked about her background and where she grew up, it was natural for us
to ask what influence her parents had on the choices she made that eventually
led to her career as a journalist. Post interview, we were fortunate because
she gave us a lot of information based on the open ended questions that we
asked. Despite our own previous knowledge of Radio Free Asia, she persisted
to including more background, such as being based off of Radio Free Europe,
and how she was approached to be a founder. During the interview, we did not
have one set person who asked all of the questions. We each jumped in to ask
and respond where we felt necessary, and, in addition, we all took our own
notes.
Unfortunately, we did have one problem with the interview. On
occasion, Ms. Chou’s audio would fade out. Fortunately, her answers were so
well-spoken that we were able to fill in the gaps if we missed some
information.
So, to sum up our experience, although we had questions lined
up before the interview, a lot of our questions during it were based off of her
responses, and we developed more of a dialogue rather than a yes or no
question scenario. Active listening was very evident because we were all
taking notes, and each of us provided at least one probing question after
receiving her response. We all showed interest in her life and each of us found
a topic that was particularly interesting and that caused us to ask more
questions.
One important thing to note is how she downplayed her gender discrimination.
Being told by the department chair of journalism that transfer spots are limited
and should be reserved for men because they would not eventually leave their
careers to have a family could have been a barrier that stopped women from
pursuing journalism, but it did not stop Ms. Chou.
(1)
-
Ms. Kolenda’s overall goal in life is to cultivate and promote a strong understanding and
respect for Asian culture within American society. Throughout her professional life, she has
continuously worked towards this goal. Between 1981 and 1996, Ms. Kolenda volunteered in
China as an English teacher and then was hired as a paralegal for a law firm in Beijing shortly
after. Through these experiences, she mastered the Chinese dialect of Mandarin and acquired
a personal understanding of how the Chinese culture functions. Shortly after returning to
America, Ms. Kolenda explained to us that she had started a family and decided that her
occupation as a lawyer for a New York City law firm was very rigorous and not a family friendly
career. As a result, she decided to alter her career path accordingly and landed a job in 1998
as a program officer for the Henry Luce foundation’s Asia program. In 2008, she was
appointed to the position of director within this same program which is the position she still
holds today. The Henry Luce Foundation’s Asia program has the main goals of fostering
cultural and intellectual exchange between the U.S. and Asia and creating scholarly and public
resources to promote a strong understanding of Asia within the United States. These goals are
achieved through the process of monetary grant making to select academic institutions which
is one of Ms. Kolenda’s main responsibilities as director. Overall, Ms. Kolenda’s careers and
personal experiences throughout her life have greatly contributed to the topic of women in
U.S.-Asian relations. She has worked to build a symbolic bridge between the United States
and Asia and places a strong importance on educating America’s future generations on Asian
culture. Overall, the information we obtained through our interview with Ms. Kolenda strongly
reinforced several topics we have learned throughout this course. In addition, it was a very
unique experience in that it not only solidified several topics within this class but also gave us a
more personal and realistic perspective of women in U.S. Asian relations by allowing us to
hear it first hand from Ms. Kolenda, who works in that field herself.
The interview lasted a little over an hour (1:01:40) We had a mixed interview structure. Prior to the
interview, we prepared a list of questions from which we sent a few general questions as well as a few
thought provoking questions to Ms. Kolenda, so that she had an idea what we would be discussing
during the interview. This allowed us to not waste too much time coming up with questions on the spot
and hoping that she would be able to answer them properly. We did find however, that some questions
would be asked on the spot, in response to an answer that she had given us, which were examples of us
actively listening. For example : After answering our question concerning any descrimination for being a
woman that she felt might have been in her way as she was working in China, she answered by saying
no, but she always got the feeling that they would have preferred working with a man. We followed up
with a question asking if she would have preffered that to have been out in the open, rather than
lingering around in the darkness. We did not have a set method for how we would ask questions, we just
let the conversation flow naturally. Ms. Kolenda was very chipper and made having a conversation quite
easy, even inviting us to tour the foundation if we are ever in the city! There was a lot of smiling and
joking going on between us, which made for a very comfortable atmosphere.
Just a little humor! She loved it =]
(1)
-
Talk about founding her Theatre of Yugen and its mission: Theatre of Yugen is an
experimental ensemble dedicated to the pursuit of the intangible
essence of yugen. With a foundation in Japanese noh drama and
kyogen comedy, we create works of wo evolution of live performance
and foster intercultural understanding. And by training and educating we
keep the legacy of theatrical discipline is an important concept in traditional
Japanese aesthetics.
The exact translation of the word depends on the context. In the Chinese
philosophical texts the term was taken from, yūgen meant “dim”, “deep” or
“mysterious”.
http://www.theatreofyugen.org/our-mission/
Forms of Noh and Kyogen, Mission to share these arts with American
audiences and students.
Japanese born. Trained in classical theater styles of Noh and Kyogen. Brought
heritage to West in 1960s.
Stereotypes of Asian women in Film.
Racist ideals like Yellow peril that focused on asian community destroying traditional
principles in the west.
This influenced asian women because female asian characters were created as a
response to the growing asian population at the time. Usually as fillers. Not played by
asian actresses but white women. Form of white washing.
Miyoshi Umeki. Similarily learned to play many instruments and performed in the
states.
Sayonara broke boundaries in USA screen mouth to mouth kiss. Taboo fo sleeping
with the enemy” where the film questions the post WWII mindset against people of
asian background.
Asian women tend to be more aware of their culture. Surrounding issues of us-asian
relations, women play an integral role to the preservation of asian ethnic identity in
the face of acculturation.
Very personable!
Open ended questions lead to more narratives and anecdotal responses
Laughs a lot. Reminiscent.
(1)
-
1
2
3
4
(1)
-
1
Associate Professor Clarissa Burt has been a teacher in the field of Arabic Literature
at the United States Naval Academy for a little over a decade and has a Ph.D in
comparative semitics. Clarissa lived in Cairo for about 10 years over the course of a
20 year span before coming back to the States to become a professor in the Naval
Academy. Clarissa became interested in Arabic, a language mainly concentrated in
the Eastern Hemisphere, after studying many other languages throughout high
school. Her love for Arabic and knowledge of the language grew because of the
beauty in the literatures that she was encountering while studying the ancient
language. Clarissa was kind enough to give us a brief lesson on the Arabic language
and notified us about how it was being used by young people during her time in
Egypt and even went as far as to compare Arabic poetry in Egypt to Hip-Hop in
American culture. Clarissa was also able to give us some insight about women’s
roles in the Arab world. It turns out that there are tremendously different
situations regarding women’s roles that differ from country to country, or
sometimes even within a single country. Clarissa has watched these things change
radically in Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco throughout her career. The extent of
women’s involvement has gone up and down with the fortunes in the Egyptian
political system. There is a feminist consciousness in the Arab world which gets
articulated differently from country to country. Since the revolution, Muslim
2
brotherhood backlash and hostility towards women on the streets has been a
problem and there continues to be suppression towards women. Just the morning
of the interview, Clarissa had heard of a death of 2 sisters who had been thrown off
the top of an apartment building. Her assumption that this had to have been a
murder goes to show the severity of these issues in the Arab world. On a brighter
side, although there are serious problems in the Arab world, women are interested
in creating opportunities for other women and in making society better for women
and girls. While between 25 and 50 percent of young women cannot find jobs in
the Arab world, women created an NGO that had very successfully given them
pathways into careers. With some extremist groups that have the desire to push
women back to a position of powerlessness and domestic seclusion still present in
the Arab world, there are still women and men actively finding ways to participate
and raise awareness.
2
3
(1)
-
1
Our interview was with Ms. Alexandra Toma, the Executive Director of the Peace and
Security Funders Group, located in Washington D.C. The mission of this network is to
enhance the effectiveness of philanthropy that is focused on peace and security
issues. Ms. Toma, who also has experience in politics, government, and advocacy,
expressed that more attention should be given to important global issues while
setting politics aside. Her network aims to provide educational opportunities to
members, as well as to encourage collaboration and the exchange of ideas.
2
The questions we asked were structured to influence the information we received in
a pattern of general to specific information. Our first section was loosely intended to
function as a biography and explanation of her work. Our second group of three
questions was constructed to understand her job and industry goals and
achievements in better detail. Finally, our last section was about the future of her
industry with specific regard to any advice she would want to give new women
coming into her field.
We were active listeners throughout our interview; all of us leaned in and nodded
while she spoke, occasionally throwing in clarification or follow-up questions to
ensure we had understood her and that she knew we had understood. One of the
main goals of her industry is to increase government funding of philanthropic
ventures, which naturally raised follow-up questions about any possible political
affiliations. We learned that they work in a bipartisan manner to seek funding for
charitable causes.
In terms of verbal cues, we maintained a neutral pitch throughout the interview to
portray that we were relaxed, but our pitch changed when we asked questions to
show our interest. We maintained a normal volume and did not have to raise our
3
voices. Both parties also resumed a steady rate of speaking. In relation to body
language, we had smiles on our faces throughout the interview and tried to maintain
eye contact the best we could through Skype. At times, Ms. Toma did look away
which indicated that she was thinking about her responses before answering.
3
(1)
-
1
The mission of Ambassador Julia Chang Bloch can be seen throughout her career. She
has broken down many barriers. More specifically with her current position as
President of the U.S. Education trust, she has been focusing on breaking down the
barriers between China and the United States; in order so that these two countries
can better understand each other. Being the first of Asian origin to become
Ambassador of Nepal and being a woman at that, she has used that as her motivation
to go further and be successful in her career. Something that we took away from our
interview was that although being a woman with such a high-ranking position, that
should be all the more reason to succeed. Having a strong mentality and courage to
prove others wrong can take you very far. Woman are going far and making enormous
contributions to global issues today. The women of today, such as Julia Chang Block
have set the bar for women of future generations.
2
The questions we asked Julia Chang Bloch were created around what basic
information we knew about her from both Professor Christoff and our own
independent research. In preparing our key questions we knew that what and how
we asked them would influence the type of information we would be able to get from
the interview. Our objective was to learn as much as we could about the
accomplishments of Julia Chang Bloch in the half hour we had to spend with on her
Adobe Connect. The interview was held at 4:30pm on November 10 th.
We knew that Ms. Bloch was born in China and at the age of nine years old moved
with her family to the United States. We started out by asking her about moving to a
new country at a young age. We wanted to know what were the reasons for her
move from China to the United States and what it was like as a young girl to move to
another country. Ms. Bloch explained to us that it was an exciting time in her life. She
stated that since she was a young girl at the time, it was her parent’s decision to
move. Her father was not only a Harvard graduate, but the first Asian Graduate, and
he had many friends in America that wanted him to move to the United States. She
spoke about her childhood and stated that back in China she never went outside; she
went from home to school and back home. Her Amah (her nanny) would drive her to
and from school, she even said it was almost as if her feet never touched the ground!
She was brought from one place to the next and really had no free time to play
outside. She stated that girls of her generation did not go outside in China. Once she
came to the United States she did not have an Amah and her parents were both
3
working. She said that her and her brother got to play outside all the time and that
even as a girl she felt free in the United States.
We asked Ms. Bloch about her time in the Peace Corp and wanted to know what it
was like and what exactly was her driving force. We wanted to know about what
inspired her. Ms. Bloch’s explanation in turn inspired us. She explained that her father
had always told her that when your country does so much for you you have to give
back to your country. His thinking was similar to that of another great man- John F.
Kennedy. Ms. Bloch explained that it was the assassination of John F. Kennedy that
was her driving force in joining the Peace Corp. As our previous slide showed, John F.
Kennedy is famous for his quote, “Ask not what your country can do for you but what
you can do for your country.” John F. Kennedy established the Peace Corp in the
1960’s and it was Ms. Bloch’s mission to be a part of it. These questions opened up
quite a dialogue for our interview. She explained that in her time many young people
were involved in social programs and that today it saddens her that the same thing is
not so. She would love to see young people more involved. We talked about our class
and she was very interested to hear about all that we had studied. We moved onto
the US-China education trust and her passion behind it. With active listening we
learned that it is her goal to keep the relationship between the United States and
China a good one. Both countries are tremendous super powers and in saying that
need to stay on each other’s good sides. She was very clear on explaining why it is
necessary and that if her two countries did not get along it would not be a good
thing. She believes that with programs such as the U.S.-China education trust that a
good relationship between the two countries can continue and that the United States
can continue to keep the peace.
Julia Chang Bloch explained to us that she has broken barriers all of her life. One of
the best parts of the interview was when she told us the story about a little girl in
Nepal. Ms. Bloch was appointed to Ambassador of Nepal by George H.W. Bush in
1989. Upon her welcoming visit to Nepal there was a little girl near her who was
talking to her father. Within earshot of Ms. Bloch the little girl asked, “where is the
American ambassador I want to see her.” To which her father replied and pointed
that is her right there. The little girl then said, “ But she looks just like me.” Things like
these are what has made all of her challenges worth it. Julia Chang Bloch prides
herself on being able to represent her country well and at the same time being able
to put herself in the shoes of others. She explained that when someone told her she
wouldn’t be able to do something or couldn’t do something it was what made her
push even harder. She was a wonderful interviewee and we really did enjoy
interviewing her.
3
(1)
-
AAS 307: Women in US-Asian Relations
Lauren B Slater
December 16, 2016
108764697
I. Marilyn Morin Slater - WWII Nurse
Part 1- Friday, November 25th, 2016 at 2:51PM, approx. 44 minutes.
Part 2- Monday, November 28th, 2016 at 11:49PM, approx. 42 minutes.
Objective: As a child, I heard about Marilyn’s travels, but I never realized the significance of her
adventures before taking this course. During this interview, I aimed to gain a better
understanding of her experiences and motives for traveling in Japan and the Middle East.
II. Pre-Interview Preparation
My pre-interview research consisted of me writing down everything I knew about Marilyn, my
grandmother, in time sequential order and sending it to my father, her son, Timothy. He then
filled in some significant holes and corrected a few of my mistakes, and this is what I based my
initial questions off of. When I first approached Marilyn to see if she would be interested in
participating in this interview, October 29th, she seemed very reluctant, and was skeptical that
her experiences would give me any insight into women in US-Asian relations. She said several
times, “Well, why don't you find a nice Japanese or Muslim girl and interview her;” however, as
she shared her experiences in Afghanistan over tea in her kitchen that Saturday, I explained to
her that the short story she just told me about dining with her husband and Afghani men in 1975
gave me much insight about cultural differences and being a woman in the middle east. She
!1
seemed to realize how determined I was to learn from her experiences, and seemed much more
forthcoming afterwards.
After our initial discussion, I received a lengthy email containing a short summary of her time in
Japan. She said she had difficulty keeping dates straight in her head, so she prepared them for me
ahead of time. We decided that November 12th would be a good day for the interview, but due to
an untimely death in the family, the interview was postponed to the 25th. Prior to the 12th, I sent
my revised questions to Professor Christoff for review, and there were many of them. I am so
curious about everything that my grandmother has experienced and she aided me in honing in on
the questions that would really give insight and allow me to apply my knowledge of US-Asian
relations.
Part One: General Information
When and where were you born?
What are the names of your parents and siblings? When and where were they born?
Where did you grow up and where did you go to school (K-12)?
When and where did you go to college?
How did you meet Grandpa?
When and where did you get married?
Part Two: International Experiences (especially in Asia)
Of all the countries that you lived in or visited (Italy, Germany, Afghanistan, Japan, etc),
which ones did you like the most and why?
What years were you in these countries and for what reasons?
Because the class I’m taking course focuses on Asia, I wondered if you could tell me
about your experiences in Afghanistan and Japan:
• What years did you go to these countries?
• Did you enjoy living in these countries?
• What friendships did you develop? How long did these friendships last?
!2
•
What kinds of things did you do in these countries – to learn about the people and
cultures?
Part Three: Family Stories
I’ve heard a lot about your life growing up and I wondered if you could answer some
questions I always had:
• Can you tell me about the dinner you shared with Grandpa’s peers? [Will she
know what dinner you are referring to?]
• How did you meet Shafi? What is he like?
• Who is Indra? How did you meet him?
• When did you attend Dartmouth’s intensive language course? What was it like?
• Did you take Japanese to prepare for your trip to Japan?
• How did you become interested in Japanese weaving? Were you interested in
weaving before you began to learn about Japan?
• What did your friends think about your endeavors? Did they do similar things?
Did they have similar interests?
Do you have any photos or letters you wrote or received while living in Afghanistan? We
would love to see them.
Part Four: What would you like to tell the future generation of women about living
outside of the United States? Do you think everyone should have an international
experience? Why or why not?
III. The Interview
1. Did you get complete answers to your questions? Explain.
For the most part, yes, I received complete answers to my questions. Mostly, I just asked her
about her time in a country and she would tell the full story, beginning to end. I would
interject with unplanned questions here and there, but all the questions were resolved without
much effort on my part. We did not discuss one question about her friend Indra, because that
was a different trip. She travelled to Pakistan for a short while and we did not have time to
cover that trip as well.
!3
2. Was your interview structured, unstructured, or mixed? Explain.
The interview was fairly structured, my questions were asked in four parts. The first was
general information, the second international experiences which had to be split into two
interviews. Marilyn is 93 years old and although her mind is still sharp for her age, she gets
tired easily and I didn't want to pressure her or stress her out about dates and such, so we
discussed Japan on Saturday and then when we reconvened on Monday we discussed her
international experiences in terms of Afghanistan and then went on to discuss part three,
family stories, and part four, her concluding remarks and statements. Most of part three was
answered in part two, and where it was appropriate I would ask part three questions while she
was telling her stories. After discussing the bulk of her time in Japan, I suggested we look
through some photo albums to spark her memory. She had many photos of her time in
Afghanistan as well, although they were in traditional slide technology and at the time her
slide projector was not working.
3. What probing questions did you use? Explain.
Most of my information was gathered through probing questions. For example, when we
were discussing Japan I asked her to tell me about some of the photos she took while she was
there. We went through the photo album and she told me about the friends she made and the
festivals she went to without me even having to ask. She mentioned that one of the first
customs she learned was to take off her shoes when she entered a home, so I proceeded to ask
her about other customs that may have come as a surprise. While we were discussing
Afghanistan, she described a house as “typical,” but because I am not familiar with Afghani
culture I asked her what she meant by that, which lead to quite an elaborate description of the
!4
home and gave some insight into the domestic life and customs and she stressed how
important teahouses and drinking tea was to their lifestyle.
4. Explain your team approach. That is, who did what?
I worked on my own, but Professor Christoff and my Uncle Gregory aided me significantly.
Professor Christoff helped me develop the interview questions and organize them. My Uncle
Gregory, Marilyn’s oldest son, typed up the summary of her time in Japan and emailed it to
me. He also pulled out all her corresponding photo albums, tried to set up the slide projector,
and was present during the interview to offer information such as dates and locations when
necessary.
5. Did the interviewee give you any documents or references to articles to read, or did she
mention other people for you to talk to (or research)? Explain.
Yes, Marilyn gave me a typed up summary of her time in Japan and she wanted to go through
the photo slides of Afghanistan to spark her memory a bit more, but unfortunately the slide
projector was broken so we only made it through two slides. She wanted to give me a book
on Afghanistan; however, we could not find it.
IV. Interview Notes
She was a little nervous and uncomfortable in the beginning, I think the interview was an
inconvenience for her. When I opened my computer to begin the video, she was startled and then
she asked me to get her a hat upstairs. While I asked her general information she was staring at
herself in the computer and when she was trying to recall something she would look to her upper
left corner (I was sitting on her right side, about a 90 degree angle from her). She spoke fairly
!5
quietly, until she started talking about what she like about a place, Boston specifically. As she
began to talk about her life, I noticed a lot of similarities between us. She was forced to move in
the middle of high school, as was I, and when she discussed going to nursing school with her
mother, her mother told her she wouldn't be a good nurse, which reminded me of when I started
college she told me I wouldn't be a good engineer and that I should do something else, but we
both stuck it out and ended up loving it.
She was quite animated when discussing her time at the Jersey City Medical Center and her
relationship with her husband, Gregory. She laughed when she told me how he proposed. When I
asked her of all the countries she like the best, she responded that she had a fondness for Italy,
but her favorite is Japan. So, I proceeded to ask her about Italy and she got a little flustered and
articulated that Italy wasn't her favorite, Japan was her favorite, so I apologized and asked her
why Japan was the best. She sort of ignored my question and just went on to tell the story about
how she got thinking about traveling to Japan and then when it came time to discuss her actual
trip she read aloud from a paper she had prepared. Afterwards, I tried to get her to more freely
discuss her time there and we went through photos. Whenever she remembered something from a
photo she would say, “Oh, now here is something interesting” and point down at the photo.
When I asked her about other customs and such that she learned she got very quiet and took a
long pause trying to recollect her memories. She started to talk a little slower towards the end,
because she was getting tired, so we stopped after forty-five minutes to take a break. Afterwards
I brought her some water and she took a nap.
!6
We reconvened three days later and she seemed much more comfortable the second time around.
She started discussing why Gregory was going to Afghanistan, and when I asked her why she
went she got a little irritated and said, “I just told you why.” When she started talking about
living there her voice got light and you could hear in her intonations how amazing even her
memories were of the trip. She laughed a lot while she was telling this story specifically I think
out of embarrassment for inviting her friend Shafi up to her apartment and then when she talked
about running through a field of poppies and her husband calling her to come back. She loved
talking about seeing the camels. When I asked her about the meal she shared with her husband
and his Afghani peers she sort of rolled her eyes and made a sound sending the message that she
was still put off by the experience. She said, “Oh, you mean the dinner where no one talked to
me, well…”. Her experience in Afghanistan reminded me of the experiences of the missionary’s
wives and the theme of identity as a foreigner crossed my mind as well.
When I asked her about her friends in Connecticut and if they had adventures similar to hers, she
didn't quite understand what I was asking at first. It was like she didn't notice that she had all
these experiences and adventures that no one else had. Marilyn told me about a conversation she
had with her good friend Deandra just a few days earlier who said to her that she could never
think of going anyplace like Afghanistan by herself and Marilyn simply responded, “Well, I just
go,” as if there was nothing to it.
Through her travels in Afghanistan, she reminded me of the missionary’s wives, providing a
female perspective to a culture which was not much known and how her purpose in the country
!7
was to benefit a community. In terms of cultural identity, I think she struggled here and felt
alienated before she met Shafi. I picked up bits and pieces that suggested she felt like an outsider,
not fitting in with the hospital staff, not fitting in with the women, not fitting in with her
husbands male friends. When traveling in Japan, she seemed much more prepared than
Afghanistan and could communicate with the culture more effectively. I think also at the time of
her travels, between 1975 and 1986, Asian culture was much more open to Americans than
Afghani culture was. She mentioned making many friends and going to parties and feeling safe
even in the city at night in Japan, it really seemed like she felt at home there.
V. Analysis
I found the whole interview to be meaningful. To have an oral history of my Grandmother, even
though it is just fragments of her life, means very much to me and it is something I hoped to do
even if I didn't take this course; however, integrating the themes of US-Asian relations definitely
made me view her life in a different perspective and really tie her life and the opportunities she
had to a larger picture. I especially loved hearing the little stories, like when she met her husband
and their proposal, when she leaned on a paper wall at the weaving school and fell through the
wall, and her running through the field of poppies. I have only known her for a little of her life,
and I have never seen that side of her. What wasn't useful, was the time constraint. I would have
loved to talk with her and ask her questions for hours. I think what I want to know most after
interviewing her is what her mother thought of all of this. What she thought about her husband,
about traveling through Europe so young, about her hobbies and adventures. I would like to
!8
know more about her travels through Europe, South America, Egypt, Russia, and Pakistan and
how her relationship with her husband changed (if at all) from being a wife to a mother.
After watching all the other final presentations, I especially loved hearing about Sophie
Richardson and Vanessa Johanson. The interview with Sophie Richardson revealed that her goal
was to improve human rights and work more directly with the locals in the community. I thought
that was very interesting and the connection towards the textile case we discussed in class and
how locals were advocating for rights despite fear of persecution was very strong. I think her
goal of improving human rights by working at a local level and by improving relationships in
China will prove to be very successful based on our class readings. I also thought it was very
comical that she told off Obama for not doing his job, that story gave some insight into her
personality.
Vanessa Johanson also gave off a very good vibe and she seemed to very strongly advocate for
women’s empowerment which was a very big topic in the video-recorded panel I participated in.
She articulated that the wants women to take more firm control and initiative and she wants to
develop further solutions to help the government fight rebel groups in Myanmar. What I thought
was most interesting about her experiences was that even after she spend so much time living in
Myanmar, knew the language and the culture, she still did not feel integrated. She said that even
though she knew the language there was always a language barrier and she had trouble making
friends due to a law that had recently been abolished banning foreigners from entering the homes
of locals. I thought this was very interesting in terms of cultural identity and I related this
!9
experience of hers to the one Marilyn Slater had in Afghanistan. Marilyn mentioned that at a
dinner she shared with her husband and his Afghani peers, not one of them spoke a single word
to her the whole time and she recollected that she had wished she could go sit in the kitchen with
the women, but even then she said she wasn't sure she would have been welcome there either.
These experiences are similar, because they bring up cultural differences which directly effect
how foreigners integrate and develop their own identity in a strange place. Lastly, the message
Mrs. Slater felt she wanted to share was that anywhere you travel or live abroad it is essential to
learn the language prior to your travels and while listening to all the presentations, I found that
this message was a common one!
!10
(1)
-
Alfreda Murck is an art historian and independent scholar who was born in Eugene,
Oregon and grew up in California. From 1978 to 1991, she worked at The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, where she helped organize the creation of the Astor
garden (the second picture) in the Chinese art section. And from 1991 to 2013, she
and her husband lived in Taiwan and in Beijing, where she worked as a consultant for
the Forbidden City’s Palace Museum.
1
When I asked her why she chose to pursue the study of Chinese art,
she said, “Well, I wanted to see the world.” Although she originally wanted to study
French Impressionism, she ended up traveling to Hong Kong because of her realistic
yet open-minded approach to life. After her study abroad in Hong Kong galvanized
her interest in Chinese art history, she went back to school to study Chinese Art and
Archaeology.
As an art historian, Dr. Murck discusses the value of “cultural
exchange” between the United States and China: it exposes people to different
cultures and allows them to gain a greater understanding of these cultures.
Oftentimes, art is also a vital part of diplomatic relations: “exhibitions are often
turned to as a first gesture of diplomatic relations.” Not only are art and art history
valuable for cultural exchange and diplomatic relations, it also has the power to
enhance life.
Dr. Murck worked with the Luce Foundation to promote the teaching
of Western art inside China, a move she explained was motivated by a greater need
for the study of Western art than for Chinese art and by how presumptuous it would
have been for Westerners to teach the Chinese how to study their own art. This
reminded me of the missionaries’ efforts to do exactly that—teach the people whose
countries they were living in how to live their lives; and in some ways, the course of
2
Dr. Murck’s life is similar to that of the missionaries we discussed, as James and John
mentioned yesterday in connection to their interviewee. But thankfully, as we can see
in Dr. Murck’s description of the organization’s work, we have learned some lessons
from history.
2
My interview was a little different in that I interviewed Dr. Murck in
person at her apartment in the city—the professor even lent me her video camera
and tripod. Because it was an in person interview, the nonverbal cues were a little
more readily apparent than they might have been otherwise. I noticed at the
beginning of the interview that both our postures were a little tense—I was leaning
forward in my chair because, as the interviewer, I wanted to look attentive—but, as
the interview progressed, we both relaxed into more comfortable positions and
stopped shifting around in our chairs. We had steady eye contact throughout as well.
In terms of verbal cues, Dr. Murck began the interview by jokingly asking if the
camera was too close and if her head was cut off in the video camera—and it was.
After I set up the video camera again correctly, she complimented my first question
(about how her parents had influenced her life) and said that it was something she
had never thought to consider. For me, I hope that I seemed as interested and curious
during the interview as I was—my major is art history and so speaking to an art
historian about her life and her career was an amazing experience.
I prepared about 15 questions before the interview that were
organized chronologically; my intention going into the interview was to trace over Dr.
Murck’s early life, education, and career, and then connect her life and work to the
greater context of U.S.-Asia relations. She answered many of my questions with her
3
response to my first question—I don’t know if that was because my question was too
broad or the interviewee had the expectation that she should give this overall
summary of herself first. Thinking that I would need to come up with questions on
the spot, I was a little flustered but I went ahead and asked the questions she had
answered with her first response anyway. She only traced over the arc of her life
generally, so with my specific questions I was able to elicit more detailed, specific
responses. That is one example of active listening from the interview.
I think this interview was a very interesting experience in that it
reflected many of the stories we have discussed over the course of the class but with
modern perspectives and sensibilities.
3
(1)
-
Asha Samuel, Arianny Santana, & Shamarie Williams
Final Paper: Interview
Section One
Person Interviewed: Dr. Carol Hamrin
Interviewee’s title and position: Senior associate at the Global China Center; previously a
research professor at George Mason University and senior research specialist at the State
Department
Date, time, & length: The interview took place on 11/13/15 at 10:33 a.m. and lasted one hour and
two minutes
Objective: to learn about the career path of Dr. Hamrin and how that is reflective of the role of
women in U.S.-Asian relations
Section Two
Before the interview, Dr. Hamrin sent us a resume with information about her education,
her different positions in her career, her publications, and links to various videos of her speaking.
Unfortunately, the videos didn’t work but the rest of the information was very valuable in our
preparation. We had already read excerpts from a book that she edited, Salt and Light. We
utilized resources she provided us with along with information we found on the internet from
researching her, to formulate the questions. We prepared 13 questions. We asked three questions
about her early life, which allowed us to understand how her childhood and education helped
shape her path. We asked five questions about her career in the State Department and her
involvement in human rights and religious freedom. Finally, we asked five questions that asked
her to reflect on her career and the role of women in US-Asian relations. Of all these questions,
we emailed her five that we felt were comprehensive of the entire set:
-
Because we are interested in women in US-Asian relations, we wondered if being a
woman affected your career path.
-
What led you to choose to focus on religion and how does it impact your career?
-
What influenced you to pursue a career as a speaker and consultant?
-
What, in your opinion, is one of the biggest issues concerning religious freedom?
-
What, in your opinion, is one of the biggest issues concerning human rights? How does it
affect women in China?
Section Three
For our interview, we definitely got very complete answers to our questions from Dr.
Hamrin. She took time to think about her answers and gave very thorough responses. For the
most part, because of how complete her answers were, the interview was mixed structured. We
were able to ask questions about her opinion or experiences in situations that we didn’t anticipate
being able to ask ahead of time but for much of the interview, it wasn’t necessary. She answered
the questions to the fullest so we didn’t need to ask many follow up questions. In fact, sometimes
her answers allowed us to skip other questions. Our questions about the actual subject matter of
her career were probing. They were questions that asked her to tie her career to current affairs
and allowed us to gain much more knowledge about the subjects.
Our team was very balanced in our work. Asha initiated contact with Dr. Hamrin,
Arianny contacted her about the questions we would ask, and Shamarie sent her a follow up
thank you email. During the interview, we all asked questions in a rotation. Although Asha was
designated to take notes, we all jotted down comments we found interesting or important so we
could get a more accurate portrayal of our opinions during the interview. Dr. Hamrin didn’t
outright give us resources but she did mention various people that were involved in her career
and the State Department as a whole.
Section Four
Through the interview, we were able to understand Dr. Hamrin’s career path and how
that ties in with the role women play in U.S.-Asian relations. Dr. Hamrin’s interest in Asia,
particularly China, started with her father who was in the Pacific during World War II. The
souvenirs from his time overseas and the Pearl Buck books that lined his bookshelves peaked her
curiosity. She didn’t realize how much this impacted her until recently when she began writing
memoirs for her own children.
Her motivation to go to college came from her mother. As a widow, her mother
constantly said that it would be Dr. Hamrin’s brother that would go to college so that he could
support the family. This instilled a sense of determination in her to have a higher education. She
knew that she wanted to go to college out of state and was able to do so by attending St. Olaf
College with a scholarship from her church. This also allowed her to study abroad in Thailand
and Hong Kong. At the time the Red Guards were rioting in Macao, and even though she
couldn't go there due to the chaos of the rioting, she was able to witness in person the Cultural
Revolution in Macau. These experiences sparked an interest in her wanting to understand the
Cultural Revolution in China as a whole.
While doing her Masters at Yale, she focused on China and learned the Chinese
language. She got married after college; she and her husband moved to Wisconsin after she
finished her Masters. She struggled to find teaching jobs and instead applied to be a typist at an
Asian American Studies office. She ended up walking out of the office with a four-year
fellowship to study in China. She earned her Ph.D. in comparative world history from the
University of Wisconsin. Even though it was atypical for anyone, let alone a woman, to go for a
doctorate, her husband encouraged her to pursue the degree. Fortunately, it opened up many
doors for her.
She entered the State Department during the feminist movement. During this time, there
was a raising of social consciousness and her coworkers were aware of her stance and
involvement as a feminist. When we asked her if being a woman affected how she was treated,
she said that it didn’t. Because her coworkers knew she was a feminist, they occasionally make
jokes and tried to be politically correct. Her doctorate allowed her to be taken seriously; her high
level of education outweighed her gender.
Dr. Hamrin became involved with human rights and religious freedom because the State
Department was required to do an annual human rights analysis on every country around the
world. Specialists had to figure out the human rights platform of China, and one of the categories
of the report was religious freedom. At the time they didn't know much about the situation and it
was difficult to get information. For the most part people saw China as having a secular society.
There was so little information about religion. People believed there were underground
Christians, but that only ethnic minorities were religious believers. Using her own contacts with
missionaries, Dr. Hamrin was able to start working on preparing information.
It is important to note that not only is she a career woman but she is also a family woman.
She has a husband, Bob, who she said is very supportive, and at one point was the only supporter
she had in pursuing higher education and achieving a high level career. She also has three
children, and when she needed to focus more on her family, her and Bob both stepped up. He
started working at home, and she had the State Department create the first part time job in history
for her-- even though she was still doing the work of three people. Back then, it was the norm for
women to stay at home and care for the family instead of pursuing a career, but she did both
because she had that support from her husband and children.
During this time, in 1986, Dr. Hamrin was approached by Ruth Graham (the wife of the
famous evangelist Billy Graham) to help them prepare for their first trip to China. The Grahams
wanted to be conscious and respectful of Chinese culture so they wanted an expert involved in
their plans. She worked with them from 1986 to 1988 by doing research on the history of the
Church in China, helping them prepare, and travelling with them to China.
She continued to do more reporting and analysis on religion in China for the annual
reports. She said that she was considered an expert on China and its religious issues because she
was the only one who cared. Under the Clinton Administration, the White House asked her to
brief Congress on religion in China and work on a plan to send a group of religious leaders to
China during the big debate of what was the most favored nation. The Clinton Administration
wanted to find ways of dealing with the issue of religious freedom in China so it took the
initiative of trying to get business people to pay more attention, sending religious delegations to
China, and requiring more reporting on religious freedom.
Dr. Hamrin mentioned that it was evident that the U.S. government was just touching the
surface of understanding foreign relations and foreign policy with China, at the time when China
opened up to a market economy. The U.S. didn't understand certain things because the
government didn’t have the resources to thoroughly investigate and study certain changes. All
the U.S. learned and had time to focus on was what was given from the foreign ministries and
high-level leaders. She made it her mission to know more so she took a 2-year sabbatical to study
the Five Year Plan in China. This was the start of her being the one to take the initiative to not
just speculate and reach for the surface of what was going on is China, but to dig deeper.
Dr. Hamrin said that around the late ‘90s and early 2000s the U.S. government would ask
the Chinese about religious freedom but ignore the big underlying issues. The U.S. would focus
on major world religions like Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, but ignore the issue of religious
freedom for the 90% of Han Chinese who were being persecuted. This was an issue for her and
when there was a big internal debate in the government about whether or not a persecuted cult
religion in China should be defended, she argued that as long as its practices are safe and legal, it
should be defended just like any other religion.
In the early 2000s, Dr. Hamrin was eligible for early retirement from the State
Department and decided to take it. She was tired of politics and wanted to work for herself. She
now works from home as a senior associate for the Global China Center in Virginia.
After covering her influences and career path, we transitioned to more reflective
questions about the current state of China and where it could be headed. There is great
controversy among experts on religious freedom in China. There are some that would agree that
things are getting better and some who wouldn’t. According to Dr. Hamrin, the growth of
religion is China has forced the government to recognize religious freedom, but it doesn’t know
how to fix the issue. Dr. Hamrin mentioned that people in China on the ground are choosing
more and more to ignore governmental restrictions and policies, and are living by their
commitments and faith. She said that this gradually will force chance de facto and the
government will have to respond to the issue. She also mentioned that this way in which the
people has stood up for themselves, has forced a lot of change in China already, including
economic change, and the government has had to change policies to keep up with what's
happening.
The interrelationships among different sectors (i.e., economic, political, cultural, social)
have impacted foreign relations and domestic change in China. Dr. Hamrin mentioned that the
basic freedoms in China need help, but the freedom of association is one of greatest concerns.
She said that China’s governmental structure is still Marxist-Leninist although the economy is
Capitalist. So, in theory equality reigns but this is not the case in practice. The Party dominates
key decision making, though the leadership at the top is having a power struggle that isn't getting
resolved. She said that Freedom of Association has been growing for non-governmental
organizations, but the party still has strong control over these organizations by authorizing those
that work closely with the party, and delegitimizing those that don't.
We ended the interview with asking Dr. Hamrin for advice she could give to us or anyone
who wants to pursue a career similar to hers. She told us to find our calling, find our niche in a
field, and pursue it. She particularly emphasized not letting anyone talk us out of our interests
because even if it might not seem viable or traditional now, what we want to do might be the
norm in ten years. She told us that perseverance and passion are crucial for a successful and
happy career.
Section Five
Overall, there were many parts of the interview that we found useful, both for this project
and as a personal takeaway. Hearing about her career path was definitely useful. It gave us a
clearer picture of how women in government can be involved in foreign relations and how being
specialized opened doors for her. It was interesting to see how sticking with a particular area of
interest can be incredibly helpful. When she first started out, she struggled to get a teaching job.
But because of her education and her focus on religious issues, she was able to go farther than
she imagined.
It was also great learning about how much the State Department changed in the years she
was working there, and how she became a part of that change. Her interest in China was
something that ultimately benefitted not only her but the State Department as well. We also
found the fact that she noticed a bias occurring when people discussed religious freedom in
China and worked towards rectifying it meaningful. In the interview, she stated that she wanted
to work towards religious freedom for all, not only her religion and the fact she recognized the
fact that minority religious groups indicated a lot about the type of person she is and why she
choose to focus on religious freedom.
Dr. Hamrin’s advice to us was particularly useful. She told us to find our unique calling,
and focus on that. It’s not often that you get to sit down with someone that’s made it in her field
and ask for help. It’s an opportunity that all three of us valued. Students often hear advice to
chase their dreams but it never seems realistic. The way Dr. Hamrin phrased it made having a
career in something you’re passionate about seem doable.
In general, we would’ve liked to hear more about Dr. Hamrin’s work now with the
Global China Center and exactly what that entails. Learning more about how her previous
experience affects her work now would’ve been very interesting. In fact, learning more in depth
about the various stages of her career would’ve been useful. The purpose of our interview was to
learn about her career path so it wasn’t feasible for us to go into depth when her career started in
the ‘70s. After listening to the presentations of other groups we would have also liked to learn
more about current projects that she is involved with. Although many of the women in other
groups stated that their work didn’t focus specifically on women, their role in current projects
was essential and would have been a great way to map Dr. Hamrin’s career trajectory.
All of the projects that we got to see were fascinating; it was great to see all these
different perspectives on women in U.S.-Asian relations. It was especially interesting to see
when other interviewees touched on subjects similar to things Dr. Hamrin told us. One of these
ideas was the fact that Dr. Hamrin felt like being a woman didn’t negatively affect her career
path. She gave us a specific answer to the reason for this, that she was well educated. However,
the groups that interviewed Jennifer Chou and Dr. Latha Chandran mentioned that their
interviewees felt the same way. If we had known beforehand that many people had this
experience, we would’ve asked her more about how she thinks being a woman affects other
careers.
Another idea that was similar to something Dr. Hamrin said, and something we’ve
touched on in class, was mentioned by Margarethe Adams. She said that female ethnographers
have a different perspective than male ethnographers. She would get the perspective of other
females especially those who have families whereas single male ethnographers would get the
perspectives of other single men in the area. This was a sentiment that Dr. Hamrin also expressed
when she talked about her work in the State Department. She said that the men would approach
situations with solely a political perspective while she would look more at social issues.
Hearing about Dimon Liu was exciting because she is also involved in human rights in
China. This was an interesting juxtaposition because Dimon Liu worked directly with the issue
while Dr. Hamrin worked to rectify these issues from a different position. It’s important to
consider that when Dimon Liu was trying to get the government’s attention about China, it
refused to help as opposed to when Dr. Hamrin was in the State Department and they especially
focused on it. It highlights the need for different positions of power and ability when it comes to
righting wrongs.
We could talk about all the women we learned about for pages. They all offered such
interesting perspectives and work in such powerful ways to try to change the world. It’s easy to
get something out of each presentation and be able to relate to all these women. The biggest
takeaway from this project is that there are so many ways of being involved as long as you don’t
let anything hold you back. Whether or not they felt like they were being faced with injustice,
these women fought to break that glass ceiling and get to where they want to be. They showed us
that there are many different ways to be involved with foreign relations and that being a woman
in this is a very specific, important niche.
(1)
-
Christopher Gomez, Michael Munson, Seth Williams
AAS 307 - Final Paper
Section 1:
Person interviewed: Clarissa Burt
Interviewee’s title or position: Associate Professor of Arabic Language, Literature and
Culture at the United States Naval Academy
Date, time and length of interview: November 10th, 7:00 pm, 45 minutes
Your objective in conducting the interview: To learn about the career and goals of
Associate Professor, Clarissa Burt
Section 2: Description of the pre-interview research (What did you find out prior
to the interview about the person and/or place with which she is affiliated? How
did you prepare for the interview?) List your interview questions.
For our pre-interview research, we decided to Google our interviewee. The
person that we found online was an actress and model. Before conducting any further
research, we asked Professor Christoff if this was indeed the correct woman. It turned
out that it was a different woman, so we were fortunate to catch this early on.
Christopher conducted most of the communication between our group and Clarissa
Burt, including initially contacting her about the interview, scheduling a time for the
interview, and getting information from Clarissa. We were also given information by our
professor as a part of our research. We learned facts such as Clarissa being a
professor at the US Naval Academy, her living in the Arabic world for over 10 years in a
20 year span, and about her interest in Arabic culture and literature. It was from this
information that we were able to construct questions as a group for the interview. The
group discussed and proposed each question, and organized them in an order that we
found appropriate in regards to a chronological perspective. Each member had a printed
out list of the questions we intended to ask Clarissa during the interview. These are
some of the questions that we asked: What interested you into studying Arabic? What is
it about Arabic literature that makes it stand out to you (as opposed to other types of
literatures)? Do you plan to return to the Arabic world? What interested into becoming a
professor? What kinds of responses have you gotten from your students? What is a
current project of yours?
Section 3: Answer these questions:
1.
Did you get complete answers to your questions? Explain
2.
Was your interview structured, unstructured, or mixed? Explain
3.
What probing questions did you use? Explain
4.
Explain your team approach. That is, who did what?
5.
Did the interviewee give you any documents or references to articles to read, or
did she mention other people for you to talk to (or research)? Explain
Throughout the interview, Clarissa gave us vastly complete and elaborative
answers to our questions. In fact, she would often answer the next couple of questions
we had set up before we could even ask them. It made sense that would answer the
next questions that we had, as our list of questions was what we found to be
chronological. For every question asked, she left us well informed on that specific topic
and mentioned only information that was relevant to that topic. For example, when
asked about what interested her into Arabic, she included every important point leading
up to her ultimate decision, including what she was studying previously and what
interested her in general.
We consider that our interview was mixed, leaning more towards a structured
format. Our group planned to follow the list of questions we had printed out, but at the
same time, ask probing questions when appropriate in order to engage in somewhat of
a “small talk” conversation. An example of a probing question that we used was when
she told us about what interested her in Arabic literature, she mentioned the beauties
specific to it. We asked her what exactly it was about the literature that made it so
special, and sure enough she gave us a descriptive and immersive answer. She
explained that she was hooked on the works of ancient Arabics like nomadic
pastoralists and traders who lived such unique lives, and even by the ways young Arabs
use literature as a means of establishing themselves and calling for change.
Christopher conducted the communication between the group and Clarissa.
From there the group worked together to construct our questions. Some notes were
taken during the interview, but we also tried to focus on the conversations we were
having with our interviewee, as we understood that we could take advantage of the
interview being recorded. Michael was our group’s moderator during the interview, that
is, he started us off and ended the event. All members participated in asking the
questions that we had prepared as well as questions that were not printed out that came
as responses to Clarissa’s answers.
Professor Burt did in fact give us some poets to look into. As a part of one of her
answers, she mentioned Wadih Saadeh who now lives in Australia and whose work is
documented on the Internet (many of which are translated by Professor Burt). At the
end of the interview, Clarissa was apologetic in her current project not being womancentered and gave us two women poets that we could also look into online: Iman Mercal
and Farah Chammah.
Section 4: Insert your interview notes/write up here. Remember to be accurate
and concise. Consider what was said, any emerging trends your interviewee
mentioned, different interpretations, and recommendations for follow up
interviews.
Being a teacher in the field of Arabic Literature and Culture at the United States
Naval Academy for about 11 or 12 years, Clarissa formally introduced herself as
Associate Professor Clarissa Burt. Clarissa was also quick to point out that she had
lived in Cairo for about 10 years total over a 20-year span prior to starting at the Naval
Academy.
It was be hard to hide our growing interest in Clarissa’s motives for learning
Arabic (a language mostly concentrated in the Eastern Hemisphere) so we got right to
asking her why she learned Arabic in the first place. Clarissa found the question
humorous and responded with a story: Clarissa actually did not learn Arabic from the
get-go. Clarissa had studied numerous languages in High School (and even some in
Middle School) and grew an immense interest for theology and the bible by her early
twenties. More specifically, Clarissa concentrated on Latin and German in High School
and then concentrated more on Hebrew and Greek as an undergraduate. Because of
her peers and teachers tendency to tell Clarissa that Arabic would be too hard to learn
without a prior general knowledge of the aforementioned languages, Clarissa saved
Arabic for the last (but definitely not least) language that she would learn. Clarissa was
immediately hooked on Arabic because of the beauty in the literatures she was
encountering while studying the ancient language. Besides, Clarissa could go to the
cafes in Cairo and bond with contemporary poets over the Arabic language and, well,
what could be better than that!?!
Ancient Arabic is different than other literatures and poetry because it shares a
great deal with other Semitic languages and ancient poetries. With a Ph.D. in
comparative Semitics, Clarissa is extremely knowledgeable on the subject and was able
to give us a quick rundown about Arabic. Arabic has its own unique beauties and
specificities because of the lifestyles of the Ancient Arabs who were nomadic
pastoralists in the desert and people doing trading across the Arabian Peninsula.
Clarissa was also naturally fascinated by how Arabic poetry was specifically being used
by young people during her time in Egypt. Young people used this poetry to promote
change for their generation and in society and displayed a tendency to go against what
their parents were doing. Arab culture also has much more powerful poetry than the
United States does. Poets would come to town in the Arab world and sell out giant
stadiums, much like Beyoncé would do in the United States. The final interesting fact
about Arabic was that women’s participation in literate culture and cultural space was
much more evident in Egypt than it was in the United States during the late eighties and
early nineties. It is important to note that women in Egypt were actually playing a big
part in politics, the working world, and literature at the time. They had a voice and a
great ability to use the power of literature and poetry in order to preach their own
concerns. This has interested Clarissa all throughout the course of her career.
After hearing Clarissa rave about her experiences in Cairo and her love for the
Arab world, we asked why she came back to the States and become a professor. The
simple answer to this question is because Clarissa wanted to make a living doing what
she loved and refused to settle for anything less. Clarissa loved studying and teaching
the literature and language so much that there was no other option than for her to
become a professor. Plus, Clarissa knew that her teaching could potentially open the
doors for others to follow her footsteps into the Arab world. Clarissa has been very
fortunate to have excellent students at the naval academy and has been tremendously
gratified by the students who really take an interest in her work. She has gone on to
watch some of her students become excellent in Arabic and this is what keeps her
going. She always hopes that some of her students will use their Arabic skills in
business, politics, or diplomacy after the navy.
Finally, we asked Clarissa to give us some insight on women’s roles in the Arab
world. It turns out that there are tremendously different situations regarding women’s
roles that differ from country to country, or sometimes even within a single country.
Clarissa has watched things change radically in Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco throughout
her career. The extent of women’s involvement has gone up and down with the fortunes
in the Egyptian political system. There is a feminist consciousness in the Arab world,
which gets articulated differently from country to country. Since the revolution, Muslim
brotherhood backlash and hostility towards women on the streets has been a problem
and there continues to be suppression towards women. Just that morning, Clarissa had
heard of a death of two sisters who had been thrown off the top of an apartment
building. Her assumption that this was a murder goes to show the severity of these
issues in the Arab world. On a brighter side, although there are serious problems in the
Arab world, women are interested in creating opportunities for other women and in
making society better for women and girls. While between 25 and 50 percent of young
women cannot find jobs in the Arab world, women created an NGO that had very
successfully given them pathways into careers. With some extremist groups that have
the desire to push women back to a position of powerlessness and domestic seclusion
still present in the Arab world, there are still women and men actively finding ways to
participate and raise awareness.
Section 5: Your analysis: What aspects of the interview did you find to be
particularly meaningful? What aspects were not useful? What more would you
like to know? What other in-class presentations did you find particularly useful?
Explain
In my few years studying at Stony Brook University, I have only been assigned
one interview, for my freshman seminar class. At first I thought because this task was
so tedious that it would not be helpful. I figured that doing an interview was just a filler
assignment, just a project to keep us busy and kill time. After interviewing someone in
our Stony Brook marine biology department, I learned a lot about the practices at our
Stony Brook South Hampton campus, the biologist’s life and findings during her travels.
This knowledge gave me great insight on some of the amazing things people are doing
around the world. Learning about these experiences from a primary source is an
excellent way to figure out more about the world and more about you. After doing my
first interview it opened up my mind to new things that I may want to study here at Stony
Brook in order to take advantage of my college experience while I am young and still
have the chance. The same curiosity that is fulfilled with knowledge by reading books
and articles can be achieved during an interview of knowledgeable people. Interviewing
professionals has taught me that even if some have not yet gotten the luxury of
publishing their life experiences into a book or journal, they still have amazing life
changing lessons and experiences that are capable of inspiring those who are willing to
listen.
This year I was granted the luxury of being able to have a conversation over
video chat with Professor Clarissa Burt. Professor Burt is a professor of Arabic studies
at US Naval Academy. Her eventful life experiences have brought on her passion for
the Arab culture. She spent 10 years living in the city of Cairo in Egypt where she was
able to gauge her love for the topic from first-hand experience. She learned the
language and grew an everlasting relationship with the Middle East. Within Clarissa’s
journey throughout the Middle East, her main attachment grew between her and the art
of poetry expressed there. She spoke to us of wonderful poets that inspired her,
including Iman Mercal and Farah Chammah to name a few. In her spare time she would
enjoy watching these poets live in order to feel the emotions they convey through their
work.
Professor Burt wishes to be able to spread awareness to all of the unwritten
languages that exist in the Arabic world. She wants to be able to eventually develop a
written language platform for these languages, so that they may be understood by all
who are willing and curious to learn more. Clarissa informed us of her relationship that
started her family with a man she met in this Arabic land. She does not say much about
this man other than the fact that he is the father of her children. Professor Burt also tells
us a little about the backstory of one of her favorite writers Wadih Saadeh. Although that
information is interesting I decided to place more focus on her effort to make Arabic
poetry more globally recognized. While Clarissa’s works may not directly impact the
career trajectories that our group wishes to follow, we found what we learned to be
incredibly interesting. We find Clarissa Burt’s life to be an inspiration, and has
persuaded us into looking more into Arabic literature. Our group would also like to learn
more about women’s roles in the Arabic world, therefore the poets that Clarissa
mentioned would be good starting points.
The main interview that intrigued me was the group that interviewed Nancy Davis
Lewis. Since my group had our own experience interviewing a woman whose main
purpose was to implement change, this one caught my eye because her purpose was
similar. Though Clarissa Burt’s goal was to implement change with language, Nancy
Lewis thought that women should be agents of change. Nancy Davis Lewis a director of
research at “East West Society”. Some of her main points that she preached is that she
believes women to be more caring for the environment and that women should be the
main leaders in the development of society. She thinks that the voice of women being
heard is important in going forward.
(1)
-
Denisse Ceballos, Ayodele Ajibade
POL/AAS 307
SECTION ONE
Person Interviewed:
Madelyn Ross
Interviewee’s title or position:
Madelyn Ross current position is Director of Hopkins-Nanjing Center Washington D.C. and
Associate Director of John Hopkins School of Advance International Studies (SAIS) China. She
has experience in US-China relations including education, economics and government relations.
Date:
Friday November 18, 2016
Time, and length of interview:
47:57 Via Audio Recording
Your objective in conducting this interview:
Our objectives for conducting this interview is very similar to the objectives of this course. We
wanted to examine the role Madelyn Ross plays in U.S.-Asian relations as a women and what
experiences has she had throughout her life that brought her to where she is now. Also, we
wanted to know the knowledge of the different ways women have made an impact on the
relationships between U.S. and the many nations in Asia. This interview would help us speak
with a primary source directly and learn just how U.S- and Asian relations have changed. We
also wished to share some of the knowledge we received from our interviewee.
SECTION TWO
With a little help from Professor Christoff, she told us how Madelyn Ross was one of the first
students to arrive in China from America once President Carter normalized relations. Afterwards,
we decided to google our interviewee. The first thing that came up was her LinkedIn page. From
there, we found out the basics of her life. Madelyn Ross went to Princeton University in
obtaining a BA in East Asian Studies. Also, she went to Columbia University in the City of New
York to obtain her MA in International Affairs. It was intriguing to see how she went to Fudan
University where she earned a certificate in modern Chinese literature. Subsequently, we looked
at her experience and were captivated by them all. Firstly, she was an Editor-in-Chief of the
China Business Review and Executive Director of the China Business Forum. We were
astonished how she went to the business field since the page didn’t even mention her earning that
degree. Secondly, she was an Editor in Washington Journal of Modern China, Director of China
initiatives and China Coordinator and the Director of Global Consortium before her current
position. We knew that her passion was to create dialogues and friendships that will help
illuminate China to America and America to China. From all these experiences, we were able to
construct questions for the interview. While we were creating the questions to ask her, we
decided to organize in regards to a chronological perspective. We broke it into three parts;
Childhood, Education, and Career Path/Reflections. We sent Madelyn a couple of questions prior
to the interview to make her feel more prepared and comfortable. Also, it was to give her a sense
of the direction we were going. The questions we sent her are listed below:
Childhood
1. Is there any significant event or family member in your childhood that sparked your
interest in China?
2. How would you describe U.S. and Asian relations when you were our age?
Education and Studies in China
1. Was Asian studies your initial major in your undergrad? (Did you change majors?)
2. What did the normalization of U.S.-China relations mean to you?
Career Path and Reflections
1. How would you describe your responsibilities as Director of Hopkins-Nanjing Center
Washington Office?
2. Could you give us an example of when you fought for a certain cause and how did you
feel about the situation and outcome?
While we sent her these questions, we prepared more because we wanted to be ready and show
her how engrossed we were in her life. The questions listed below are what we made to ask her
and didn’t send it to her:
Childhood
1. What college did you go to?
2. Did you have any experiences that influenced your interest in Asian studies? (We didn’t
ask this because she answered that question while we were talking)
3. Could you tell us about your education path before college? (We didn’t ask this because
she answered that question while we were talking)
Education and Studies in China
1. Was Asian Studies your initial major in your undergrad?
2. Being an American in China; Pros? Cons? Misconceptions? (if you could give us any
example)
3. Were there any difficulties or challenges with language? Was it easy to communicate or
were people not accepting? Any challenges you faced in China?
4.
What graduate school did she go to?
5. Did you study economics in China?
6. Seeing how you study economics, in your opinion what is your biggest issues concerning
the economy in China? (Past and Present)
7. How does it affect women in China?
Career Path and Reflections
1. How would you describe your responsibilities as director for SAIS China?
2. Who would you consider your role model in sense to women in general, in Asia and/or
US?
3. What advice would you give someone who is pursuing your field of study?
SECTION THREE
Did you get complete answers to your questions?
Yes. majority of Madelyn Ross’s answers were packed with background information that gave us
the big picture. Yet, constantly, after all was said she would conclude her statement with a clear
answer to our question. Some questions that we hoped to get more information from some
specific questions but instead were given a general answer. Instead of moving on, we would ask
the question again hoping to get an opposing idea. This mainly occurred during the second part
of the interview when we wanted to know about her experiences in China.
Was your interview structured, unstructured, or mixed?
Our interview was a mix of structured and unstructured. We split the interview into three parts
concerning Madelyn Ross’s life experiences and her opinions about certain topics pertaining to
women and U.S.-Asian relations, especially China, relations. There was a slight order that we
wanted to follow, with the first segment revolving around her childhood, the second segment
about her education and her studies in China, and third segment which focused on her career path
and reflections. The first part of the interview consisted of non-structured questions that jumped
between asking about the person that influenced her significantly as a child to asking her to
describe the relationship between China and the United States. Similarly, the first segment and
the second segment of the interview were not in any specific order. Instead, it was very
unstructured because some questions asked during this part lead us on a tangent. From any
tangent, we would ask follow up questions that were not under our list of questions.
What probing questions did you use?
The probing questions we a bit difficult to create when we tried sticking to the format given in
the PowerPoint provided on Blackboard. This was because it seemed like the probing questions
described in the document were centered around first, getting a response from the interviewee
and then following up with a probing question. Creating the probing questions became a lot
easier after we read the slide notes that better explained this style of questions. We asked her if
she had experiences with any misconceptions of the Chinese people that were proven wrong
while she was in China. In her answer, she told that she knew that China had been a difficult
place to live during the cultural revolution but didn’t know the personal feelings of the people
living there. She then explained how she learned more about the sufferings and emotions of the
people because of her experience in Fudan University. This question allowed us to get more
information about the cultural shock she experienced, saying “I got to Shanghai and it was like
going into a time capsule”. Some more probing questions were, how does the economy of China
affect women in China and how she felt after fighting for a certain cause.
Explain your team approach. That is, who did what?
Our team is very dynamic and impromptu. This helps us get out of tough situations quickly but at
the same time makes us run into more tough situations that could be eased with better planning.
This characteristic affected our approach. From sending Madelyn Ross the very first email to
concluding the skype call, our main goal was to keep Madelyn Ross comfortable with us. This is
significantly shown in the beginning of our interview where we ask her about her day, aiming to
break any “ice” or tenseness between us. The question making responsibility was divided
between both of us evenly. For the interview, Denisse oversaw asking the childhood questions
while Ayodele oversaw asking the education and her studies in China questions. However,
during the interview we decided to take turns asking questions.
Did the interviewee give you any documents or references to articles to read, or did she
mention other people for you to talk to (or research)?
No, she didn’t give us any documents or references to read. However, she did mention Ding
Ling’s name while giving us her background information before getting to her point which we
greatly appreciated her doing. In the final part of the interview Madelyn Ross made a very
admirable statement that we took as great advice. When we asked her about what advice she
would give a person pursuing the same field as her, she said, “Having an open mind towards
seeing all sides of a problem is important. Go see the world and get to know how other people
live. Put in the time to learn the language”.
SECTION FOUR
Interview Notes:
• Ice Breaker
o How was your day? Ask about weather
o Introduce ourselves and tell her about our majors
o Told her our undergraduate year
Childhood
• High school student around the 1970sà graduate in 1975
• 15 years old when President Nixon went to China
o (Huge impression and her smiling)
• Loves to study languageà took French and Spanish in high school
• Didn’t learn Mandarin in High School since they didn’t offer it
• Grandfather born in Russia influenced her interest in China
o Disenchanted with Russia
o Became more interested in China version of communism
• Only applied to colleges who offered ChineseàPrinceton had the best Chinese program
• Perry Link was her first Chinese Professor she ever had
o He was a non-Asian person who spoke fluent Chinese
o Found him very inspiring
• Very interested in American studies (Latin America)
o Especially Brazil
• Loved learning the language
Education and her studies in China
• In the summer of her Junior year, she went to Taiwan to study Chinese
o Couldn’t go to China since there was no normalized relation between us-china
• Senior year, wrote her thesis of Ding Ling
o Ding Ling was a writer and novelist during the 1930s. Her article was condemned
by Mao Zedong because she questioned the party’s commitment to change
popular attitudes towards women. During the late 1950s anti-writer campaign, she
was outspoken and was punished where she was sent down to the country side.
She disappeared. During the 1970s, Madelyn became interested in her writing.
She even wrote her thesis paper on her. She reemerged by 1979.
• In the middle of her senior year, President Carter normalized relations with China.
January 1979
• Applied for Princeton’s fellowship called Sachs Scholarship because she wanted to go to
China
o The scholarship is only given to one graduating senior
o She won it
• She met Ding Ling while she was in China
o Sounded very excited
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Culture shock:
o airport small, very dark. Going back to time capsule. Not many cars; only old
Russian cars. Very few lights. Bicycle everywhere. Big eye opener
She was one of the first people on the front line when she visited China
People in China were warm and welcoming
o People who weren’t living in cities were afraid of foreigners due to the Culture
Revolution
o Many people who didn’t speak Mandarin outside of the city
o Having foreign friends could land you in jail
Denisse’s phone rang (should have put it in silent)
Between August 1979 to August 1980: the economy in china was finally starting to open
to the west. She wanted to understand how the economy work, how international trade
and international business worked. She wanted to be part of the US-China economic
opening.
Her phone rang which made Denisse more comfortable
When she graduated from Columbia, she went to Hong Kong for one year to work in the
Bank of America doing economic research on China especially on Chinese provinces.
o Chinese statistic wasn’t reliable back then. She was working with a group
providing providential economic so that business people who wanted to go to
China learned that if you wanted to trade in light industry places where, what was
the agriculture, industry in these different providential economic.
She asked if we were taking notes.; we forgot to tell her that we were recording her
o She was very understanding and only said it because she was throwing allot of
information to us
Editor of China Review
o She was writing stories about the businesses between US-China
Kept her eyes on us when we were asking her questions
“Women hold up the sky”
She sees women as coming from a long way. They are participating in all levels of
professional life. One interesting development is the changing attitudes towards marriage.
Women used to focus on marrying well and finding a good husband. Now they are
putting their careers first.
o Attitude towards divorce was frowned upon in the past but now it is skyrocketing
Rushed because she had another commitment to attend.
o Asked for a copy of Final
o Asked if we have any more questions we can email her and schedule another chat
o Super friendly and kind
SECTION FIVE
Your analysis: What aspects of the interview did you find to be particularly
meaningful? What aspects were not useful? What more would you like to know? What
other in-class presentations did you find particularly useful? Explain
This assignment was, without a doubt, a huge pleasure and joy. Not only were we able to learn
about some of the most inspirational and respected women who have an impact on U.S.-Asian
relations, this assignment allowed us to experience speaking with one of these women first hand.
Interviewing Madelyn Ross opened windows that we wouldn’t have opened through just papers.
Her ability to remember the events she mentioned in the interview is very remarkable and was
very useful for this assignment. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, we had to minimize our
interview length and get all that we could with the time we had. She was very cooperative and
wonderful to listen to. Professor Christoff mentioned right after our interview asked us if we
knew about Madelyn Ross’s YouTube channel. We did not know she had a YouTube channel
and even after a quick search we could not find it; something we wished we could have asked
Madelyn about in the interview. During the in-class presentations we heard about other women
and the group’s processes. Presenters like Julie/Danielle, who spoke about Jennifer Staats,
Matt/Alejandra, who spoke about Hodei Sultan, and many others spoke about women involved
in the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). Jennifer Straats was described to be very
optimistic and was, ironically, the one who started the interview with Julie/Danielle. the idea of
the interviewer becoming the interviewee was very interesting. Many of the presenters said that
,in their interview, the interviewee described issues coming from age and little to none from
gender which greatly surprised all of us. We were surprised because after that was said, the
interviewee would answer probing questions with answers that clearly described gender
inequality.
(1)
-
Dr. Latha Chandran was born and raised in Kerala, which is the most southern part of
India. At the age of 17, she moved to the United States where an arranged marriage
was planned for her. Before traveling to the United States, she pursued a medical
degree from the University of Kerala Medical School. When she left India for the
United States, she had no idea what was in store for her. She began applying to
different residency programs, even while being seven months pregnant. After getting
denied several times from the residency program here at Stony Brook, she began
applying elsewhere even though it was inconvenient. She eventually got accepted
into a residency program at Lincoln Medical Center in New York City. After working
there for several months, the chief of residents at Stony Brook eventually realized
what she is capable of. She was then offered a position at Stony Brook University
Hospital, where she was asked to be chief resident after only being there for three
months. Now after thirty years of practicing medicine, she focuses most of her time
towards undergraduate medical education, where she stands as the vice dean. Dr.
Chandran is outstanding physician, who has overcame tremendous obstacles to get
to where she is today.
The questions that we asked Dr. Chandran were centered on the obstacles that she
faced while being here in the United States. Although she left her family behind in
India at a young age to move to the United States, it was never a decision she
regretted. When asking why she wanted to pursue a career in medicine, she
responded “my mother wanted a child that was a doctor.” This was significant
because it demonstrated the relationship between parents and children within
different cultures. Dr. Chandra claimed that when she came to the United States she
wanted to make a difference. She wanted to change the way that us Americans view
Indians and their culture. This in person interview was conducted on November 5th at
approximately 3:00. This interview lasted for about 40 minutes. We asked Dr.
Chandra prior to our interview if we could audio record her, which was done on both
an ipad and an iphone. Audio recording her was extremely beneficial because it gave
us the chance to go back and analyze the information that she had provided for us.
This interview was conducted like a mixed structured interview. There were both
prescribed and flexible questions that were asked and Dr. Chandran provided us with
her own opinions. She was extremely enthusiastic and grateful to be interviewed for
our final project.
Publisher’s note (3/16/2017)
The following document is the same as above, but with corrections made by the
interviewee, Dr. Latha Chandran, in red.
Dr. Latha Chandran was born and raised in Kerala, which is the most southern part of
India. She moved to the US after having an arranged (not forced) marriage when she
was 25.At the age of 17, she moved to the United States where an arranged
marriage was planned for her. Before traveling to the United States, she pursued a
medical degree from the University of Kerala Trivandrum Medical CollegeSchool.
When she left India for the United States, she had no idea what was in store for her.
She began applying to different residency programs, even while being seven months
pregnant. After getting denied several times from the residency program here at
Stony Brook, she began applying elsewhere even though it was inconvenient. She
eventually got accepted into a residency program at Lincoln Medical Center in New
York City. Although she was rejected three times from the residency program at
Stony Brook, she transferred her in her final year of residency. After working there for
several months, the chief of residents at Stony Brook eventually realized what she is
capable of. She was then offered a position at Stony Brook University Hospital,
where Sshe was asked to be chief resident after only being there for three months.
Now after twenty threethirty years of practicing medicine, she focuses most of her
time towards undergraduate medical education, where she servetands as the vice
dean. Dr.
Chandran is an outstanding physician, who has overcoame tremendous obstacles to
get to where she is today.
The questions that we asked Dr. Chandran were centered on the obstacles that she
faced while being here in the United States. Although she left her family behind in
India at a young age to move to the United States, it was never a decision she
regretted. When asking why she wanted to pursue a career in medicine, she
responded “my mother wanted a child that was a doctor.” This was significant
because it demonstrated the relationship between parents and children within
different cultures. Dr. Chandran claimed that when she came to the United States
she wanted to make a difference. She wanted to change the way that us Americans
view Indians and their culture. This in person interview was conducted on November
5th at approximately 3:00. This interview lasted for about 40 minutes. We asked Dr.
Chandran prior to our interview if we could audio record her, which was done on both
an ipad and an iphone. Audio recording her was extremely beneficial because it gave
us the chance to go back and analyze the information that she had provided for us.
This interview was conducted like a mixed structured interview. There were both
prescribed and flexible questions that were asked and Dr. Chandran provided us with
her own opinions. She was extremely enthusiastic and grateful to be interviewed for
our final project.
(1)
-
Emely Liranzo
Victoria Jaramillo
Alyssa Shevlin
Dr. Latha Chandran Interview
(Section 1)
Person interviewed: Dr. Latha Chandran
Interviewee’s title or position: Pediatrician, chief of residents at Stony brook University
Hospital, and undergraduate medical educator.
Date, time, and length of interview: This interview was conducted on November 5th at
approximately 3:00 pm. This interview lasted for about 40 minutes.
Your objective in conducting this interview: It was centered on the obstacles that Dr.
Chandran faced while being here in the United States.
(Section 2)
Description of the pre-interview research (What did you find out prior to the interview
about the person and/or place with which she is affiliated? How did you prepare for the
interview?)
We searched for Dr. Latha Chandran in Google, and we found out that she is a pediatrician in
East Setauket, New York and is affiliated with Stony Brook University Hospital. She received
her medical degree from University of Kerala Medical College and has been in practice for 31
years. She is one of 108 doctors at Stony Brook University Hospital who specialize in Pediatrics.
Dr. Chandran has many publications in which she emphasize mostly in medical education,
disease in children, and programs for youth. She is an outstanding physician with honors and
recognition for most of the achievements she has made. We prepared our questions for the
interview based on the research we did, mostly using her publications as a source. We asked her
about her background and personal experiences since she moved to the United States.
List your interview questions.
1.
Where did you grow up?
2.
What occupations did your parents and siblings pursue?
3.
Did you ever consider a career other than medicine? (Please explain.)
4.
What were your reasons for moving to the United States? And how did you learn the
language?
5.
What inspired you to specialize in pediatrics?
6.
What were your reasons for developing an expertise in contraception, diaper rash, genital
warts and pneumonia?
7.
What personal and professional goals matter the most to you?
8. We noticed that you have many publications and even won two awards (Bridges to
Excellence Recognition and NCQA Physician Practice Connections). How did you manage to
achieve so much in your career?
9.
Did you face any particular hardships while you were pursuing your career in medicine?
10. Was it difficult to be a woman in medical school? (Why or why not?)
11. What advice would you give us as we pursue a career in medicine?
(Section 3)
1.
Did you get complete answers to your questions? Explain
At the time Dr. Chandran was answering our question, she always answered what we asked her
with details of her past experiences, always bringing more details to answer our questions. When
we asked her: “what inspired you to specialize in pediatrics?” her answers were not
straightforward, she started with her past experiences when she was in University of Kerala
where she specialized in gynecology, then when she moved to the United States to do her
residency it was difficult and full of challenges because she didn’t go to a medical school in the
US. With some influence she was accepted into Stony Brook University Hospital where she did
her residency in pediatrics.
2.
Was your interview structured, unstructured, or mixed? Explain
Our interview was mixed, but mostly unstructured. We followed the sequence of the questions
we prepared, but flexible in asking open questions as Dr. Chandran was responding. This
allowed us to get more deep information and understanding in what she was saying. Like when
we asked her: “What were your reasons to come to the United States?” she responded that she
moved because an arranged marriage where his husband was living in the U.S. something that
was part of her culture. With this information we asked her more in depth and personal questions
based on her arranged marriage, like what her parents were expecting, and if that was what she
wanted. We were flexible in developing new questions that weren’t in our list.
3.
What probing questions did you use? Explain
One of our probing questions was: “What did you mean by cultural shock?”, she answered that
in India doctors are held in respect. They don’t communicate if the patient has cancer for
example or if the family request it. Here in the United States things are different, nurses yell at
doctors saying that they are the worst in the area, where in India there’s more respect. This is
what she meant by cultural shock.
4.
Explain your team approach. That is, who did what?
Each person in our group asked mostly the same amount of questions from our list. We also
approached to her differently in terms of open questions in our interview. Our focus was to know
more about her and get to the deepest responses from her. This interview was conducted like a
mixed structure interview because we tended to stick to our questions, yet go off track enough
for Dr. Chandran to have the opportunity to say what she needed to.
5.
Did the interviewee give you any documents or references to articles to read, or did
she mention other people for you to talk to (or research)? Explain
Dr. Chandran didn’t provide or suggested us any document or mention people to follow up, but
she focused more in giving us awesome advice like, “Whatever you do, be the best”, “In life you
have to take some risk and be prepared to fail”, “If you do your best people will notice you”,
“Follow what your heart tells you to do, because if you do then it’s a journey”. This advice was
strong and significant to us, as we want to pursue a career in medicine.
(Section 4)
Insert your interview notes/write up here. Remember to be accurate and concise.
Consider what was said, any emerging trends your interviewee mentioned, different
interpretations, and recommendations for follow up interviews.
Interview Notes:
-
Born in Kerala, India (which is the most southern part).
-
Mother was a housewife, father had a degree in law but is a banker, brother has an
engineering degree and sister is in higher education.
-
Went to an all-women’s college
-
Language was not an issue -- India is a British colony, so English is taught
-
The mother wanted a child that was a doctor. The brother was ultimately the chosen one
but he didn’t want to be a doctor, so Dr. Chandran decided that since she was good at
school she might as well go for it.
-
She was the youngest in medical school at the University of Kerala.
-
She came over to the United States at 17 for an arranged marriage. “Although it was an
arranged marriage, it doesn’t mean it was a forced marriage” (Dr. Chandran).
-
She realized he was good to his family so she knew that they would be the perfect match
since she is a family person.
-
Applied to Stony Brook residency three times but got denied every time.
-
She wanted to work at Stony Brook because it was convenient (close to house and
children, only had one car).
-
After getting a residency program at Lincoln Memorial Medical Center in New York
City, a fellow employee saw what she was capable of and recommended her to Stony
Brook, where she finally got accepted.
-
After being there for three months, she was asked to be chief resident, where she finally
resigned because of the stress. (Made work schedules for employees, dealt with
paperwork, etc.)
-
She DOES NOT specialize in genital warts, diaper rash, etc. She does specialize in
pediatrics and adolescent health though. When she was in India she had a lot of
experience in gynecology.
-
Wanted to be invisible throughout her residency
-
She has won numerous awards for her work
-
Works for undergraduate medical education at Stony Brook University
Recommendations: Our interview went exactly like we pictured it would go. We had a mixed
structure interview, so we had both prescribed questions and open ended. We gave Dr. Chandran
the opportunity to say what she needed to and go off on tangents about topics that she thought
was important. It was a comfortable environment and we felt like she was one of us. We
recommend for follow up interviews to be honest and understanding. If you disagree with what
the individual who you are interviewing has to say, tell them, it will open up a new conversation.
Also, elaborate on what they say. If there is a topic that sounds interesting to you, ask them more
about it. Another recommendation is to make sure to do research about the person you are
interviewing prior to the interview, it will give you more to talk about and help you understand
what they are saying. Listening is also a key recommendation when conducting an interview. A
final recommendation would be ask what you don’t know. When asking what you don’t know it
makes you seem like you are interested in what the individual has to say, along with learning
something that you didn’t already know. This also opens up to new conversations and it makes it
much more personal.
Different Interpretations: When conducting this particular interview with Dr. Chandran we didn’t
really have any problems interpreting what she had to say. She very clear on all the information
that she had provided us with. Although the information was clear for the most part, there was
one detail that was confusing. Dr. Chandran stated within her interview that she had traveled to
the United States at 17 years old for her arranged marriage. Traveling to the U.S at 17 is
possible, but she also stated that she had obtained her medical degree by then. In the U.S it is
almost impossible to have completed medical school at 17, but we aren’t aware of how the
education system works in India. After reviewing the audio recording, we noticed this, so it was
not addressed within the interview. We left out this information while presenting because we
didn’t want to give false information, so we stated that she traveled to the U.S “at a young age.”
Overall, we were able to clearly interpret the information that Dr. Chandran had provided for us.
Commented [CL1]: The confusion of the students
regarding when I moved to the US is clear in this
paragraph.
Trends: When conducting this interview, there were numerous trends that were brought up. Dr.
Chandran made it clear that one way to be successful is by never giving up. The idea of never
giving up was constantly brought up throughout the interview. She used personal stories to make
more relatable for us to comprehend. For instance, her experience of applying for a residency
program showed how determined she was to be a doctor. Although she got denied several times,
she never gave up. Another trend that was often seen throughout this interview was to make sure
you pick a career that you love. She made it clear that having a career that makes a lot of money
isn’t worth not being happy. “A job that makes $750,000 where you aren’t happy doesn’t
compare to a job that you love where you are making $75,000” (Dr. Chandran).
(Section 5)
Your analysis: What aspects of the interview did you find to be particularly meaningful?
One of the aspects of the interview that was meaningful to us, was how Dr. Chandran used her
perspective and experiences, like applying to Stony Brook Hospital, to show us how people have
to persevere. She applied to Stony Brook University Hospital to do her residency program, but
she was rejected three times every year. She began applying elsewhere even though it was
inconvenient, she eventually got accepted into a residency program at Lincoln Medical Center in
New York City. When she started her residency there, she got some connections who made
Stony Brook to take her in consideration. When they called her for the interview, Dr. Chandran
was pregnant, which was a disadvantage for her because of domestic responsibilities. They asked
her what was she capable of, she reply: “Once I come here I can show what I am capable of”,
and that was the attitude they liked. She was finally accepted and then they offered her a position
where she was asked to be chief resident after only being there for three months.
What aspects were not useful?
One of our questions was: “What were your reasons for developing an expertise in contraception,
diaper rash, genital warts and pneumonia?” Dr. Chandran was a little impressed with this
question, and she asked us where we got that question from. We told her that we did a little
research about her and we found this information. She just laughed and said that she did her
expertise in pediatric. In terms of diaper rash, genital warts, and pneumonia she is not in that
area, but is something that she doesn't feel uncomfortable with.
What more would you like to know?
When interviewing Dr. Chandran, there wasn’t a lot of information about her contributions to
U.S- Asian relations. Although she talked about her upbringings in India, she didn’t discuss what
she had done to help both India and America. When doing research on her, information about her
life other than her career wasn’t really provided. We understand that she has had many
successes, such as awards, but during the interview she didn’t touch upon if any of these awards
were related to U.S-Asian contributions. Personally if we were to re-interview her, I believe we
would ask more questions focusing on her background in India rather than her career.
What other in-class presentations did you find particularly useful? Explain
Although all of the in-class presentations were well conducted and helpful, there were some that
stood out upon the rest. For instance, the presentation on Ambassador Julia Chang Bloch that
Melissa, Maria and Stephanie presented was extremely helpful because it provided us with both
an insight on her personal life and her career. They began the presentation with a detailed
biography of Ambassador Bloch. They started it by telling us about her upbringing in Chefoo
(now Yantai) China and her family life. They then continued their presentation by including
details about how she got started in her career. One detail that stood out was why she decided to
join the Peace Corps. Bloch ultimately joined the Peace Corp as a result of John F. Kennedy’s
assassination. She felt like he dedicated so much time to his country and that she should do the
same. “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” (John
F. Kennedy). This was a quote that Ambassador Bloch often lived by. Growing up her father
constantly reminded her she needs to dedicate time to her country, because it has done so much
for her. During this presentation, we enjoyed the personal stories that were described between the
interviewers and Ambassador Bloch. By including personal stories, it made the interview more
personal and relatable, which was seen during the presentation. This presentation was also very
well organized. They were well prepared and knew exactly what to say during both the
presentation and audio clip. Having a well prepared presentation makes it much easier for their
listeners to comprehend the material, rather than going back and forth. Another presentation that
was particularly useful was the one about Jennifer Chou and her career with Radio Free Asia.
This presentation was extremely useful because it primarily focused on her contributions to U.SAsian relations. They began their presentations much like the other groups and discussed her
upbringings within Taiwan. Chou was an only child and had a normal upbringing. She pursued
an education at UCLA in Massachusetts. Her family would often watch the news, which
eventually gave her an interest in journalism. Her mother wanted her to be a career woman
because her mother was never able to. Learning this detail about her life was crucial because it
described the relationship between children and parents within Asia. Majority of the time here in
the United States we pick career paths based on our own interests, not because of what your
parents want you to do (although this is true in some cases). One important detail that was
described within this presentation was that Jennifer Chou didn’t experience any “culture shock”
when she came to the United States. This was important because this was a major topic that was
discussed within this course. By discussing the idea of culture shock, they included their in-class
knowledge into their interview, which demonstrated their understanding in the course. We also
enjoyed the fact that they emphasized their presentation on how it was to be a woman within this
field of work. This was significant because this course is focused on women and their
contributions within U.S-Asian relations, which is exactly what Jennifer Chou had accomplished.
They discussed how Chou often was discriminated against because she was a woman, but that
didn’t seem to stop her. Her main focus within her career is looking at human right issues that
are associated with women and what she can do to fix them. This presentation was extremely
beneficial because it gave us an understanding of what this course was really about. It opened up
our eyes to how powerful women’s contributions can be to not only the country that they are
focused on, but others that are also in need.
Publisher’s note (3/16/2017)
The following are corrections made by the interviewee after reviewing the student report of
the interview. The corrections correlate to the phrases highlighted in yellow in the student
report above:
Latha Chandran’s corrections to the Student Interview AAS 2015 report
(submitted 3/15/17)
Interviewee’s title or position: Vice Dean for Undergraduate Medical Education,
Professor of Pediatrics and Board Certified General Pediatrician
Section 2: In 2015 I was in practice for 23 years (not 31)
Section 3: She completed her residency at Stony Brook University Hospital after having
started it at Lincoln Hospital (there was no “influence,” etc.)
Question 3: Here in the United States, patients have more say in their care. I have
personally been yelled at by nurses during my intern years, whereas in India there is
more respect.
Section 4: She started medical school at 18, got married at 25 and came over to the US
with a green card at 27 years of age. She would not have come to the US if it weren’t for
her marriage.
Section 4: After being at Stony Brook for three months as a senior resident she was
offered the position of a fourth year chief residency which she successfully completed
(there was no resignation of any kind).
Section 4: Wanted to be invisible throughout her medical school in India due to fear of
hazing (not residency).
Section 5: ….but she was rejected three times. Delete every year.
Section 5: She just laughed and said that as a general pediatrician she has some
expertise in all common problems that affect children, but she was not a super expert
like a subspecialist.
2017 Update
Dr Latha Chandran as of 2017, is the Miriam and David Donoho Distinguished Teaching
Professor and the Founding Director of the Donoho Academy of Clinical and
Educational Scholars. She currently serves as the Vice Dean for Academic and Faculty
Affairs at Stony Brook School of Medicine. In 2016, Dr Chandran was named a SUNY
Distinguished Teaching Professor and subsequently inducted into the SUNY
Distinguished Academy.
(1)
-
Erin Ennis is the Senior Vice President of the U.S China Business Council. An American
citizen by birth, Ms. Ennis looks to, in conjunction with the Council, to help
companies already invested in China navigate and understand the current climate of
policy and statue in areas that may not be directly specific to that specific American
company or companies. Ms. Ennis looks to navigate and engage the two nations in
specific trade policy issues such as employment or product regulation. Ms. Ennis
believes that understanding trade is essential because “everything we buy eat, and
use has some angle to international trade”. Her current goals, given the recent
election is to reinforce in the currently elected administration of some of the basic
principles of diplomatic trade in China should be based on engagement rather than
confrontation. While these goals are completely distinct in their overall purpose, the
approach is what reminded me of other aspects of Asian American relations,
specifically in the United States’ female missionary agenda. The diversifying
approaches to spread the word of God all had different degrees of success and
action, yet the ones which proved most successful were ones more so on
engagement rather than confrontation and force. While the missionary practices have
been outdated for some time, Ms. Ennis’s comments on approach were important in
connecting it back to other topics of influence discussed in this class. While this idea
helped connect the interview to other class topics, such ideas also gave me a new
1
outlook on diplomacy and trade. I always assumed the United States was much more
confrontational, originally a negative in my eyes, rather than engaging. That being
said, Ms. Ennis’s comments on how such trade relations were campaigned upon
would ultimately be a much more confrontational frameset, a failure if executed. Ms.
Ennis repeatedly discussed and therefore informing me, the power of engagement to
best deal with American and Chinese trade relations. She emphasized that if such
were to become more confrontational, her goals of preserving engagement as the
best means of interacting would quickly switch to preventing a trade war. Overall, Ms.
Ennis’ goals and beliefs helped both reconnect me to prior elements of the class but
also apply it to a greater context of something, international trade, I know very little
about.
1
The questions I asked Ms. Ennis were divided into two categories: early background
and its influence but more so her career and the direction it has taken, is in now, and
what it will be in the future. Ms. Ennis addressed issues of gender, the power of
liberal arts, and specific aspects of what her career entails. In referencing gender,
playing to the course title of Women in Asian American relations, Ms. Ennis believed
that in the past foreign trade policy and even today the way of thinking of policy
direction is not determined by gender or sex. Such thinking on foreign trade policy is
very black and white, you’re either for or against it. However, Ms. Ennis was not shy
in telling me the way gender has impacted her job environment currently and in the
past. The first point she brought up related to how in the past, foreign trade policy
was of greater interest to females than males, until recently. Despite this; however,
she did acknowledge that men today are the ones who typically outweigh females in
the actual debate and physical interaction with such. This idea connected me to the
belief of women as “invisible policy drivers” as we have previously mentioned.
Moreover, Ms. Ennis’s emphasis on a strong liberal arts background in her career
could be applied to both then, now, and in the future. She explicitly stated her
background with a strong liberal arts education makes her very well qualified in
standardizing her approach to contextualizing, interpreting, and arguing policy. She
stated, I personally believe those skills are the most natural to have in the world”, in
2
reference to a strong liberal arts background for both her and also future employees
interested in the similar job responsibilities she is in. Lastly, detailing specific aspects
of her career were important in understanding both her function but more importantly
the context of how significant trade associations interact to preserve the delicate yet
intertwined economies of the United States and China respectively, in sectors which
may not align normally. Verbal cues were most notably her answers, yet the nonverbal cues sometimes were indicative of much more. At times needing to clarify or
adjusting from my original question was significant in making it much more personal
and gave me much more insight about Ms. Ennis. Furthermore, while video lacked in
this interview, different levels of vocal volume portrayed what she was passionate and
easily able to explain, versus more serious tones at times suggested hesitancy. Despite
that, Ms. Ennis appeared to be a very qualified and calculated professional, so
different tones were sometimes hard to read, yet she seemed to appreciate the basis for
the project and my questions. This interview was conducted via an audio recorder on
my computer on November 18, 2016 at 1:00 PM. The interview lasted twenty one
minutes and thirty one seconds. I worked independently, so I recorded and talked.
2
(1)
-
James Lynn
John Desmond
Final Project
SECTION ONE
Person interviewed: Carolyn Brehm
Interviewee’s title or position: VP of Global Government Relations at Procter & Gamble
Date, time, and length of interview: 11/21/16, 2:30 pm, 44 minutes
Your objective in conducting this interview: Learning as much as possible about U.S Asian
Relations through a person that lives and breathes it every single day.
SECTION TWO
We went to our favorite search engine and first typed in Carolyn Brehm and found a short
biography about her, which we were fortunate to find. After seeing that she worked for General
Motors and seeing her position there we researched General Motors to see what she was
involved in. She also worked for ORBIS so we researched that and finally we researched what
someone in her position does currently as the VP of Global Government Relations at Procter &
Gamble.
We prepared by reviewing the interview tips given to us by Professor Christoff. After preparing
individually by coming up with our own questions to ask using the powerpoint as a guideline we
met up to discuss how the interview would be run.
List your interview questions.
1. What did you think you were going to be when you grew up?
2. Was there a teacher in high school or college who had a strong impact in your life, what
can you tell us about them?
3. How did you become interested in East Asian Studies?
4. What was the very beginning of your career at General Motors like when Chinese
markets had just opened up to American companies once again?
5. What difficulties, if any, have you experienced as a result of your gender? What
difficulties, if any, have you faced working as an American in Asia?
6. How do you learn about your consumer audience and translate this information back to
your company?
7. Why did you decide to leave GM?
8. Do you perceive any specific characteristics that women possess that allow them to be
efficient leaders in the business of public and foreign relations?
9. How did you decide to work at ORBIS international, and what were the differences
between working with an NGO as opposed to a company?
10. How have you helped to grow P&G’s business, and what are some of the key differences
between Asian and American consumers of P&G products?
SECTION THREE
1.
Did you get complete answers to your questions? Explain
- Yes, although the first few questions were answered with a smaller length than the rest of
the questions, each question was taken seriously and each part of the question was
addressed. At times Carolyn went on for around 7 minutes answering just one of our
questions, and by doing so she shared stories and details that we had not directly asked
about including her opinion of GM as a company and her experiences as an exchange
student in Bombay in high school.
2.
-
Was your interview structured, unstructured, or mixed? Explain
Our interview was more structured than mixed. Although we provided feedback
throughout the interview by nodding our heads and occasionally sharing our opinion on
what she had said, we stuck to our questions and only deviated towards the end when we
felt one of the questions should be asked before another. John asked one question, “What
was it like living in a third world country?” that was not part of our pre-interview
questions. We felt this format was effective, and we noticed that Mrs. Brehm had
previously gone over the questions and was ready to respond to all of them.
3.
-
What probing questions did you use? Explain
One probing question was, “What was the very beginning of your career at General
Motors like when Chinese markets had just opened up to American companies once
again?”. This was a point of view probing question because we were interested in her
perspective during this unique time in history that directly involved US-Asian relations.
During World War II and the Chinese revolution, most foreign companies from the West
exited China and we knew from our pre-interview research that Mrs. Brehm was involved
in setting up new offices for General Motors in the 1980s. By asking this question she
informed us of her work with the US China Business Council, meeting her husband in
China, the international trading climate at the time, and her role as a young employee of
GM.
-
Another probing question we asked was, “How have you helped P&G’s business grow,
and what are some of the key differences between the Asian and American consumers of
P&G’s products?”. Mrs. Brehm found this question to be challenging because it made her
consider her and her department's role within P&G, and also to think about her global
consumer market that consists of ~5 billion people. This question was a clarifying
question, because before conducting the interview we were still not completely sure what
a global government affairs department does, and how it helps its respective business.
She clarified that the way she helps her company grow is by advocating for legislation
(for research, tax policy, advertising, engineering freedom), regulation (especially for Ecommerce), and public policy to protect both her company and the consumers. She also
clarified that there is not such a great difference between different nationalities in
purchasing patterns but rather that there are similarities in purchasing patterns amongst
similar socio-economic classes across nations.
4.
-
Explain your team approach. That is, who did what?
For the pre-interview research we both googled Mrs. Carolyn Brehm to see if we could
discover anything about her. From there we both researched the companies GM, P&G
and the NGO, ORBIS international to find out their purposes as institutions. While
researching them we tried to find information about their roles in Asia and we were able
to find the most telling information about GM because of their history in China. John
wrote most of the questions based off of the combined research that was completed and
tried to ask questions that would allow Carolyn to tell stories about her personal and
professional life, while James revised them and added a few of his own. For the interview
itself James took the responsibility of explaining the purpose of our interview to Carolyn
and in general he gave more feedback throughout the interview to let Mrs. Brehm know
that we were engaged in the stories and information she was providing. We split the
questions between us so that we would alternate when asking questions. For the oral
presentation we also split the questions listed in the rubric and revised each other's
answers. Finally for this written section we took turns transcribing the interview and
answering the different sections.
5.
Did the interviewee give you any documents or references to articles to read, or did
she mention other people for you to talk to (or research)? Explain
- No, Carolyn didn’t provide any documents to research. Her secretary just responded with
some times that she was available to do the interview with us. We sent over the questions
we had thought up so that Carolyn could prepare some responses before the interview and
I think that this showed her that we did enough preparation and learned about her life
enough to make those questions.
SECTION FOUR
In the interview we noticed that Mrs. Brehm’s volume was relatively low when telling us about
her childhood and early influences. She became much more animated, speaking louder and
moving her head more, as the interview went on and especially when she was talking about her
time working at General Motors. From this we interpreted that she was truly passionate about her
professional life. She put a great emphasis on the rapidly growing wealthy population in China,
as she brought up these consumers several times throughout the interview in response to separate
questions. Finally, and most importantly, we noticed that after asking about her the challenges
she faced as a woman her facial expressions were much different than the other questions. She
pressed her eyebrows and made slightly uncomfortable movements with her lips. Upon
analyzing the interview it seems that she is trying to be optimistic with her response. For
example she notes that “It was hard,” working at GM being that it was a macho industry, but
then talks about how it was more difficult to be young (and then smiles). Similarly she mentions
that “It’s been a mixed bag” implying that she has experienced adversity as a result of her gender
(of course!) but then quickly notes how lucky she is to work in companies like P&G who value
diversity. For future interviews we recommend being very attent when asking about the
challenges facing the interviewee as a result of being a woman. I believe we were naive to
quickly accept her response without probing further. Also we recommend using Google
Hangouts as opposed to Skype because there is less delay, and it makes for easier feedback
without disrupting the conversation.
Transcription of the Interview:
Intro: Simple welcoming; James: Explains why we are conducting the interview with Carolyn.
James: Question 1: What did you think you were going to be when you grew up?
Carolyn: First memory is that I wanted to be a teacher and gravitated towards Journalism due
to working on the school’s newspaper in high school.
John: Question 2: Was there a teacher in your high school or college that had a strong impact in
your life and what can you tell us about them?
Carolyn: The first one was my 3rd grade teacher, Mrs. Ellison from Germany. Her husband
worked for the United Nations and she would bring in her husband’s work that involved foreign
policies. And her views of America as a newly emigrated women in the United States. In High
School I had Tom Rollins as a History teacher. He was a globalist and encouraged us, the
students that were interested in foreign affairs, to think big.
James: Comments on how interesting it is that Carolyn was exposed to the information and the
ideas of “thinking big”.
Carolyn: I grew up in the Suburbs of Philadelphia. Father was in World War II and I had some
opportunities to travel at a young age. The international exchange experience was a big
motivator for me. I was living with a family in Bombay at the age of 16. It was absolutely life
changing. Realizing how different the world is out there and how fortunate we are as Americans.
John: What was it like living in a Third World Country?
Carolyn: It was a real eye opener, a really amazing experience. I lived with a family that was
middle class by Indian standards and my Indian parents were both medical doctors. My Indian
father’s medical clinic was across the train tracks. My Indian mother had her OB GYN specialist
clinic inside of the house. The house had no bathroom plumbing, only screens in the windows. I
keep in touch with the family even now. It was a life changing experience.
James: Question 3: How did you become interested in East Asian Studies?
Carolyn: When I was applying for college after graduating high school in 1973, I was really
interested in studying Hindi and there was very few schools teaching Hindi, but there were far
more schools offering Chinese and Japanese due to opening of U.S China Relations with
President Nixon going to China. So I was inspired to study Chinese for the opportunities. Going
to Georgetown University was great because they offered a 4 year Chinese program. I needed to
pass a foreign language proficiency. It was very difficult to learn Chinese, the first year it was 2
hours a day, 5 days a week at 8am.
James: Comments on difficulty of programming and learning Chinese.
John: Question 4: What was the very beginning of your career at general motors like when
Chinese markets had just opened up to American companies once again?
Carolyn: China at that time was a state controlled economy, and state owned trading companies
were doing all of the business between foreign companies and chinese companies. I started out
in the importer services and then moved to director of business advisory services and after six
years. I ended up meeting my husband who was an American diplomat who was stationed in the
US consulate in Guangzhou. He ended up coming back to the United States (laughter), we got
married then we were both looking for a way to get back to China. GM made me the most
interesting offer by far to actually set up an office for General Motors in China *which would be
the first official office since 1949 when all of the foreign companies exited during the Chinese
Revolution. I joined GM in 1984 and for two years basically ran the arm of the GM trading
company which existed at the time to work with economies that didn’t have a lot of hard
currency. The work that I did in the 2 years there was mostly buying products like twist drills,
cotton work gloves for factories (globally) and pig skin for making leather seats, crazy stuff! It
was fascinating, I learned a lot about supply chain issues. The biggest single deal was selling 20
Cadillac limousines to Zhao Ziyang, the Premier at the time. We set up an after sale service in
Beijing. That all happened, the limos were delivered in 1985 and it was a pretty big deal. For
GM particularly because it was the first Cadillac that was sold (in China) since 1949.
James: Question 5: What difficulties, if any, have you experienced as a result of your gender?
Carolyn: Well I would say I worked in the Auto Industry which is a pretty macho industry,
especially then. It was hard, in a place like China. China under communist rule actually had a
lot of women in positions of authority. But being young was probably more difficult than being a
woman. Particularly in those days, I was in my late 20s early 30s and to be taken seriously you
needed to have grey hair. Over the years what I found is that in different roles in Washington,
and overseas, that I’ve held there are subtle ways of discrimination that you feel. The glass
ceiling in a lot of places really still exists. In Europe it’s less prevalent. It has been a mixed bag,
but I have been very lucky to work for companies that are committed to diversity.
James: There are many difficulties that Americans have had being missionaries in other
countries (as women), we really had to ask that last question! Second half of Question 5: what
difficulties if any have you faced working as an American in Asia?
Carolyn: One example is when I was an exchange student in India. It was 1972 the year after
the India-Pakistan clashes where the US sided with Pakistan, so Americans weren’t really
popular. There was a sense of alienation. Comments here and there about being an American.
Mostly the time that I’ve spent overseas, I’ve realized how much reservoir of goodwill there is
among people around the world for Americans and the ability to separate Americans from
American policy. I fear in the world that we live in today, that things aren’t quite so open
minded.
John: Question 6: How do you learn about your consumer audience and translate this
information back to your company?
Carolyn: At P&G we have this great mantra that consumer is our boss. We don’t do anything
without understanding what HER wants and needs are (smile). Her because about 80% of our
products around the world are purchased by women (smile). It’s my role to talk to our consumer
market knowledge people so that we can then re-apply their information. The work we do in
global government relations and public policy also depends a lot on building up messages that
explain what positions we take on public policy issues and why and those messages need to be
crafted in ways that people can understand. We have some NGO stakeholders, trade
associations, other companies, the retailers that buy our products and then sell them to
consumers. The Chinese consumer is changing extremely rapidly, there is a huge demand for
premium products. That consumer has moved up market extremely rapidly, even to the point at
which our business is just trying to catch up and understand what she wants. E-commerce in
China has exploded, 45% increase since last year it now accounts for 15% of our sales.
John: Question 9: What was it like working for Orbis which is an NGO, how was it different
from working in a conventional business?
Carolyn: For one there tend to be fewer resources in the NGO world, they just tend to be much
leaner organizations that I infact enjoy a lot. Where everybody roles up their sleeves and does a
little bit of everything. The thing I enjoyed most about ORBIS was being able to bring my
business skills, strategic planning + people development, to an organization that had grown so
fast that they really had lost sight of some of the things you need to do to grow sustainably.
There were couple of things at ORBIS I was also tremendously surprised about. In the business
world you know who the competitors are. In a Washington or public policy setting, we work with
competitors at P&G, you need them to join together to advocate for public policy!
In the NGO world the NGOs with ORBIS were very reluctant to partner with anybody! For some
of the same stupid reasons! For profit companies don’t like the idea, they don't want to share
anything proprietary that might damage their leg up in the market place. In the NGO world they
don't want to partner because it might mean somebody else getting a contribution or donation
that they want. It’s all about money! They would fight with each other about stupid stuff!
Completely loosing focus on why they are on the planet, to help serve, to help treat these
particular problems. I was really disappointed. We did end up partnering, but it was too hard,
unnecessarily hard!
James: Question 10: How have you helped grow P&G’s business, and what are some of the key
differences between Asian and American consumers of P&G’s products?
Carolyn: The way we help P&G grow our business, is to protect and grow it by advocating for
sound legislation, regulation, and public policies that are good for the company and consumers.
We deliver those kinds of benefits to the company by targeting: tax policy, trade policy, research
& development, policies in companies, chemical ingredients and the regulation of those
ingredients, sound, advertising, and marketing regulation. Dealing with the internet and digital
marketing. The second part of your question; believe it or not, there aren't that many differences.
Consumers everywhere want products that will keep their families clean and healthy and
growing and strong. We manufacture in 70 countries and market in 180, so we basically serve in
most of the world. Around 5 billion consumers use our products each year. So out of 7.5…
James: That’s a large percentage!
Carolyn: It is! So you know Asians and Americans both want fluoride in their toothpaste, they’ll
also want toothpaste that provides the opportunity to keep their teeth whiter. For hair care
products, this is a great example. We have the same product names in different companies, like
Head & Shoulders, but the products may have different chemical formulations. The differences
between Asia and America probably are less than the differences between the socio-economic
levels of the consumer here and there. In China we have this 1+ consumer that is very wealthy,
travels extensively, the world is at her fingertips and she shops using her mobile device and can
buy from just about any place in the world. And then you also have consumers in China that are
at a middle class or lower class level that are more likely to be purchasing products from P&G
that we make locally that are really crafted more for the consumers of that level. That’s a long
winded answer to a tough question.
John: Comments on the purchasing differences being between class and not nationality.
Carolyn: Absolutely.
James: Comments on the difference in hair product formulations.
John: Question 8: Do you perceive any specific characteristics that women possess that allow
them to be efficient leaders in the business of public and foreign relations?
Carolyn: I don’t want to utilize too many stereotypes here, but I would say women in my
experience tend to have more emotional quotient in addition to IQ, and the EQ helps to deal
effectively with different situations. Reading body language, reading the situation in a way that
helps with cross cultural situations. I also would say that women tend to be more consensus
driven in terms of leadership styles which can be very helpful in a large organization that
actually operates based on teams. Increasingly my feeling is that is much of corporate America
now-a-days as opposed to command control. So I think women thrive in those situations,
however I also think that women have challenges; we’ve heard them from Sheryl Sandberg from
“Lean In” (Book Title). Women tend to lose confidence in situations like that, and really need to
find their voice and speak up otherwise they can be suppressed in a team setting in a way that
doesn’t completely take advantage of an individual’s capabilities. For global careers women
have excelled. In my space in Washington DC, almost half of the heads of Washington offices for
global companies in this town are women. That has changed a lot in 20 years. There were a
handful, and now there are almost half of us.
John + James: Thank you for your responses, Happy Thanksgiving!
SECTION FIVE
We both do not regularly study Women or U.S Asian relations in the classes required for
our majors, so everything we learned from Carolyn was meaningful to us. Her stories allowed for
both of us to relate in a specific way. James was able to relate to Carolyn’s story that she told
about the rigorous schedule she had in her early years at Georgetown University learning
Chinese because he studies Computer Science and programming languages everyday. John was
able to relate to her telling us about living abroad in Bombay because he was fortunate enough to
live in Peru for a year while in high school.
James particularly found it meaningful when she began discussing the opportunities she
was fortunate enough to have in the early stages of her career. Both of us are graduating soon
and going out into the “real” world, so hearing about Carolyn’s early ventures in China was very
inspiring. She was able to break social barriers by being a woman not only involved in
governmental affairs but also by being the representative and facilitator of financial logistics for
a very macho business. Carolyn attended a very prestigious college and studied East Asian
studies and Chinese; and in doing so established a strong professional foundation. In many ways
she had to go above and beyond her male peers at the time to have a professional position that
was similar to theirs. Also we noticed that her interests, especially in early life, were highly
influenced by her gender. She was interested in being a teacher (a highly female dominated
field), then journalism (also consisting of many females) and later language which is also a
subject popular amongst women. The fact that she decided finally to go into business/foreign
affairs shows that she shifted her goals throughout her life and decided to go against the current
of what was considered acceptable for her as a woman in society.
John found her perspective on the Chinese market and the companies she worked for,
both previously and currently to be most interesting. She was critical of both GM and ORBIS
international for being unwilling to partner with other organizations. When we asked her what
characteristics women possess that allow them to be great leaders in her field, she responded that
women work better in team environments than men. I believe that her intuition to see that these
companies needed to join together with other companies is directly related to the consensus
driven thinking she referred to when talking about women’s advantages in her field. Also another
meaningful aspect of the interview was seeing how a woman who was driven by personal goals,
as were many missionaries, ended up bringing about and continues to implement changes in the
area of US-Asian (business and policy) relations. Finally it was interesting to see how a modern
woman in power was relating to her mostly female consumer audience.
We both agreed that there isn’t much information that Carolyn provided that wasn’t
particularly useful. She gave well thought out answers that were clearly prepared and contained
specific important events from her life. She gave us all the information we needed and answered
in ways that would peak our own interests and relate to us as college students. Carolyn didn’t use
too much jargon that would take away from the responses, and she spoke in a very casual tone
rather than a formal tone as if we were clients.
Some additional questions we would have liked to ask are, if different formulations of
hair care are used for different ethnicities globally then which formulations are being sold in
diverse areas of the United States? Also, what do you think about the book “Lean In”? How has
it changed your life and what do you disagree about from the text? If we were given more time
for the interview, we would have liked to ask for Mrs. Brehm’s advice on how to best manage
international relationships and what strategies work best for achieving effective results from
projects that are based in teams. Finally we would have liked to ask her more about her personal
adversities that faced her as a result of her gender.
The other class presentations we thought were particularly useful were Lola, Kofi, and
Yalda’s presentation with Sophie Richardson and Alex and Viviana’s interview with Alice
Young. We thought Sophie Richardson’s goal of removing discriminatory policies and practices
that apply to ethnic minorities in China was really powerful, and it is a great example of an
American woman helping with an Asian country's endemic social issues. Although we have
discrimination of minorities in the United States as well, the ethnicities discriminated against in
China are often confined to rural areas and they have difficulty being represented in the
government. The fact that Ms. Richardson supports this cause shows that she has great courage,
and we feel lucky as Americans to know that she is one of our representatives in China. Also we
liked that she actively engaged the students interviewing her by addressing their names and
interests.
Alice Young’s role of explaining laws to foreign companies and having Asian’s voices
heard made her a very unique interviewee amongst others because she is an Asian American
representing and helping Asian companies within the United States. Her work ethic was
impressive and even a bit intimidating! She stood out to us because despite her hard work she
maintained a friendly attitude and wasn’t afraid to be flamboyant amongst her very serious
contemporaries. The fact that she was making progress for Asians within the United States set
her apart from the other women who were interviewed. She was inspiring because she is
extremely successful in her career as a lawyer, and she also uses her success to carry out justice
for those who may not receive it otherwise. Also she, like Carolyn, went above and beyond many
of her male peers to reach her level of success and also followed a career path not typically
assigned to women.
(1)
-
Jamie Horsley is a Research Scholar and visiting law professor at Yale University and
the Executive Director of The China Law Center at Yale. Previously, she was a partner
at the international law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison, a
commercial Attaché in the U.S. Embassies in Beijing and Manila, Vice President of
Motorola as well as the Director of Government Relations for China at Motorola, and
a consultant to the Carter Center, where she worked on village elections in China. Ms.
Horsley focused most of her career on improving China as a whole. She has worked
on Chinese Legal reform and believes that the Chinese people should be more
involved in their government, but the government does not allow the same amount
of participation as the U.S. does. She believes China is progressing and is changing for
the better even though the common misconception is that China is not yet a
democracy, so they haven’t grown. Her work helps women and men in China reach
their fullest potentials as citizens, and in a country where women are not holding, for
the most part, high governmental titles, she hopes that reform and higher
participation will facilitate change for women. She reinforced that China is often
closed off and untrusting of the intentions of Americans abroad, but once you make
connections, the Chinese people are warm and friendly. She also discussed the severe
censorship that occurs across social media in China, just like the censorship of
journalists in China which we discussed many times in class. She has seen this
censorship first hand, and it led her and her family to come back to the U.S. in order
to raise her children in a more open environment. We hadn’t discussed the social
media aspect in class yet, so it was refreshing to her a current viewpoint of
1
censorship in China.
1
We created questions about Ms. Horsley’s career because it was so diverse and
interesting. We had questions specific to each position she held in order to get a
better look into what she has accomplished over her vast career. These questions
helped us get answers that were expansive and would lead to ideas for new
questions. Most of the interview focused on her work IN China, as opposed to work
she did at home in the U.S.. She spent many years abroad working with China and the
U.S. first from the commercial side, and then to the political side, where she gained
many important colleague relations that benefitted her throughout her career. We
conducted a Skype interview that was an hour long. Since we were interviewing on
Skype, we both asked questions to Ms. Horsley, so we split the work evenly. We both
actively listened to what Ms. Horsley was saying throughout. For example, Ms.
Horsley discussed the Millennials of China, and how they’re creating so much change.
Dan, then, decided to discuss with Ms. Horsley how this is a trend we’re seeing today
in the U.S., to which Ms. Horsley agreed. As far as non verbal cues, Ms. Horsley
smiled throughout, especially when discussing her early career as a lawyer. You could
tell that she really enjoys her life work and thinks fondly of the time she spent in
China. She laughed and smiled throughout, so she seemed to really enjoy the
interview. She tended to look up and pause when she was initially unsure of how to
answer a question, but it would only be momentary, and then she would continue to
speak.
2
(1)
-
Jane Leung Larson is a writer and Chinese historian. She was born in the U.S. and
got her B.A. in Anthropology at Reed College, Portland, Oregon. Since 1985, she has
done research on the Baohuanghui. Her grandfather was a student of Kang Youwei,
who founded the Baohuanghui. In addition, she is also a founding member of the
Northwest China Council, one of 12 regional Councils sponsored by the National
China Council of the Asia Society. Currently, she is working on a collaborative project
with scholars to update and publish the 1972 dissertation by Robert L. Worden called,
“A Chinese Reformer in Exile: The North American Phase of the Travels of K’ang Yuwei.” Her goal relates to women’s role in US-Asian relations because it is creating an
exchange of information between the two cultures. Her work has also taken her to
China so she is personally creating a communication exchange between the two
nations.
We mostly asked her about her work on the Baohuanghui and her experience as the
director of the Northwest China Council. Therefore, most of the information we got
involved that. What we did during the interview was take turns asking her questions
and if we heard something interesting, we would ask her about it. For example, when
we were discussing her presentation on Kang Tongbi, she see was glad to discuss it.
When we got to the part where she discusses how they found important documents
on ebay she seemed happy. So, we asked her more about it. What we found out was
that Kang Youwei was a famous calligrapher so his works were being sold for the
caligraphy.
(1)
-
Julia Cunningham
109027335
AAS- Final Project Report
SECTION ONE
Person interviewed: Alexandra Toma
Interviewee’s title or position: Executive Director, Peace and Security Funders Group,
Washington D.C
Date, time, and length of interview: Monday, November 21, 2016 3:00pm
Your objective in conducting this interview: To gain a better understanding of her career and
how it relates to women in Asia-American relations as well as how her gender has affected her
personal career trajectory.
SECTION TWO
Description of the pre-interview research (What did you find out prior to the interview
about the person and/or place with which she is affiliated? How did you prepare for the
interview?)
When I received the name of the person we’d be interviewing I googled it, Alexandra Toma.
This was very fruitful as it lead to her staff page at peaceandsecurity.org which gave an extensive
biography on her career and academic achievement, such as being named a “Top 99 Under 33”
foreign policy leader by Diplomat Courier. I was initially struck by her impressive resume and
list of achievements at such a young age, even mor so when I went through the other google
search results and discovered her linkedin.com page which mentioned her prestigious list of
former employers including Connect U.S. Fund and George Washington University, alongside
many others.
I also found an article written on her life by insidephilanthropy.com which had a plethora
of information about her family history, including a small excerpt about her Romania refugee
mother, her move to long island as a child, and that she graduated magna cum laude from the
University of Virginia. Additionally that she founded the Fissile Materials Working Group
which focuses on policies to combat nuclear terrorism.
I was also lead to a video interview by the LBJ School of Public Affairs where she spoke
on her reasoning for founding the Fissile Materials Working group, as well as her personal
reasons for her interest in her field, her reasoning for choosing to work in philanthropy, the
methods she uses to pursue her goals, and what her organization and similar organizations need
to move forward in their work. Here she put a lot of emphasis in local funding and direct contact
between communities and the philanthropists.
Using this information I prepared my questions for the interview, putting less emphasis
on her personal life and career trajectory (as the sources I’d already been through had covered
that pretty thoroughly) and planning to focus on her current career, how being a woman affected
this her professionally, what her organizations goals were and how they hoped to advance their
cause in the next 10 years, as well as the advice she would give the next generation of women
entering the field.
List your interview questions.
Rubab: Ms. Toma, we understand that you are a part of the Peace and Security Funders Group
which focuses on peace and global security. Can you please tell us a little more about this
network and your role as Executive Director?
Follow up: We read that you also founded the Fissile Materials Working Group which aims to
combat nuclear terrorism. Can you please tell us more about that?
Marie: What made you want to become involved in philanthropic work?
How did you start becoming concerned with peace and security issues?
What do you believe is the role of the United States in the international field?
Julia: After everything that the Peace and Security Funders Group has already achieved, what
else do you hope this network will accomplish in the next ten years?
Are there specific issues that you hope to combat next?
Round 2 Questions:
Rubab: Can you describe any legal or technical aspects that impede the progress of your work?
How do you work around these obstacles?
What do you find to be the most difficult aspect of your role in this network?
Marie: Follow up: You mentioned you work with officials in the government, and that your
work on capitol Hill was often obstructed by politics, have you found one party or the other to be
more receptive to certain things?
Julia: If you could tell the uninformed population one thing about the Peace and Security
Funders Group in order to get them involved, what would that be?
What is something that you believe our generation should be more aware of in terms of
international peace and security issues?
Round 3 Questions:
Rubab: Because our class focuses on the role that women play in US-Asian relations and the
many obstacles that they face due to their sex, have there been any instances in your life where
being a woman has impacted your career path?
Do you believe you have had to face certain obstacles in your career due to the fact that you are a
woman?
Marie: Did you have any female mentors who helped you get where you are today? If not, have
you have any role models in general, and what do you think about the importance such figures
have in our lives?
Julia: What advice do you have for the next generation of women heading into your field, or
women, in general, who hope to achieve their dreams despite the many challenges they may
face?
SECTION THREE
Answer these questions:
1. Did you get complete answers to your questions? Explain
We did, she gave very thorough answers to our questions which really helped us better
understand the organization she works for, their goals, their progress, as well as how the
intended to expand on their progress. She gave really insightful and practice advice on how
young women are perceived in the business world and she stressed the importance of
negotiating for salary to us which not only was useful to our project but practical advice none
of us will forget.
2. Was your interview structured, unstructured, or mixed?
I think it would definitely qualify as mixed, while we did send a list of the sort of questions
we would be asking ahead of time our final list of questions were different, though similar
enough that the prep for the previous list would assist in answering them, so the interviewee
wasn’t totally blindsided. We asked probing questions and let the interviewee take the
questions and run with it rather than a strict, question, answer, question format. Her comfort
with being interviewed really assisted with that.
3. What probing questions did you use? Explain
Clarifying or follow up questions to ensure we’d understood her and that she knew we had
understood her. One of the main goals of her industry was to increase government funding of
philanthropic ventures, which naturally raised a follow up questions about any possible
political affiliations. We learned that they work bipartisan to seek funding for charitable
causes. This also led her to discuss the current political climate due to the recent Trump
Election, she worked to remain diplomatic in discussing it but did mention how it threw a lot
of her organizations connections into uncertainty. The Clintons have already been established
in politics for decades, everyone in the field pretty much knew who the useful connections
would be, who would be open to discussing what, in short, how to navigate a Clinton
presidency. Trump on the other hand has no political record; no one is short where the cards
are going to fall and that makes progress slow when you don’t know who to talk to.
4. Explain your team approach. That is, who did what?
We decided to do three rounds of questions each of us asking one question in each round,
totaling nine questions. The questions we asked were structures to influence the information
we received in a pattern of general to specific information. Our first section was loosely
intended to function as a biography and explanation of her work. Our second groups of three
questions were constructed to understand her job and industry goals and achievements in
better details, how they function on a more day to day scale and how they could better
function. Finally our last section was about the future of her industry with specific regard to
any advice she would want to give new women coming into her industry.
5. Did the interviewee give you any documents or references to articles to read, or did she
mention other people for you to talk to (or research)? Explain
She did not give us any additional documents to read though she did mention the importance
of networking and making connections. She named her mentor, Nancy Soderberg, as a
person who was hugely influential in shaping her career and interestingly he woman
mentioned was one of the women in the panel that Rubab did her report on for class.
SECTION FOUR
Insert your interview notes/write up here. Remember to be accurate and concise.
Consider what was said, any emerging trends your interviewee mentioned, different
interpretations, and recommendations for follow up interviews.
One thing she stressed was the importance of how we as young women should present ourselves
as we would be harshly judged, more so than our male counterparts. The idea that younger women are
less respected is something that appeared in a number of the interviews. In ours Ms. Toma said it was
important to Speak professionally, avoid “like”, “Uhm”, “Ya know”s. She also mentioned when she first
entered her field in an attempt to look older she started wearing make-up and glasses, cut her hair
shorter in order to be taken more seriously. Additionally as a young woman minor errors, even
misspeaking, is judged more hardly; you cannot mess up, when a guy makes a slip up, minor
mistake or misspeak people are much more lenient with them, when a woman makes the same
mistake, particularly a young woman, people are much quicker to judge her as incompetent. Finally
she stressed the importance of equal pay. Pay discrepancy real, she learned this “The hard way” when at
a previous job she found she was being paid less than a male colleague with less education and less
time on the job, after discovering this is was much harder for her to attain equal pay since they were so
used to her being payed less. In the end this wasn’t really fixed until she got a fresh start at a new job and
started negotiating her pay.
She took several minutes to stress to us the important of negotiating pay. She became very
informal during this part of the interview even cursing lightly for emphasis which gave the whole thing a
very relaxed personal feel. Her advice was to always negotiate your salary, do research on what the
average person in your position is payed, and ask for a raise every year. Her advice was though
we might feel uncomfortable doing it, it was the only way to ensure equal pay because “Men
aren’t uncomfortable” they do it every year, so should we. She even gave us advice on the
language to use such as “I appreciate that offer” “let me think about it” “Considerate” “very
generous” “What I need-/know I’m worth”. Never accept off the bat, give it 24 hours.
Another piece of her advice to young women was the importance of male support for professional
women, while many of her professional mentors were women all of her grad school mentors were men.
Her advice was to find men who “get it” and encourage them to encourage change. One example she gave
was her husband who refused to speak on all male panels, calling them “‘man’-els”.
Finally she stressed, like many other interviewees the importance of networking, and told us to
keep her email and if we ever thought of getting in touch to feel free.
My advice to other interviewers would be, don’t be afraid to alienate you interviewee by (nonconfrontationally) asking about how current events affect their profession, everyone has an opinion and
most are willing to share. It gives a better understanding of how the world around you fits together and
gives a deeper understanding of the subject at hand.
SECTION FIVE (25 points)
Your analysis: What aspects of the interview did you find to be particularly meaningful? What
aspects were not useful? What more would you like to know? What other in-class presentations
did you find particularly useful? Explain
The part I found the most meaningful were when she spoke candidly on her organizations
difficulties and intentions. At one point when I asked if there was anything she could tell the
population at large that she felt would make her job easier or give a better understanding of her
her answer was surprisingly and refreshingly frank; She told us she wished more people had a
better impression of philanthropic organizations, She said the Trump Foundation, the Clinton
foundation, they kind of give philanthropy a bad name. Most of them aren’t like that, most of
them really are trying to help people. I had to admit the general skepticism and cynicism that
seems to have affected much of the country with regard to Charity organizations was at the back
of my mind as well. Hearing from someone who worked in the industry and had a much more
knowledgeable position to speak on them that the majority of the cynicism was unfounded was
actually really uplifting. Additionally I found her take on how the next administration is
disturbing the normal routes for much of her field to be an interesting insiders take on the
situation. Also when she gave us advice on how to present ourselves as young women entering
professional fields I felt that held a lot of practical value that I personally intend to remember and
put into use when the time comes.
There really weren’t any aspects that I found to be not be useful, she was very
knowledgeable in her field and had an informed and insightful opinions on current affairs and
how to walk into the professional world.
If there were more I’d like to know I’d have to say that I wish I would interview her
again after Trump settles in office to see how the philanthropic field has adjusted and settled.
However this obvious wouldn’t be possible to have gone into at the time of the interview.
Another in-class presentation I personally found very interesting and useful was Laurens
presentation about her WWII Nurse Grandmother, who learned Japanese, weaving, and traveled
with her husband. I thought it gave a very personal and individual example of Asian-> American
relations. Specially how one American can interact with Asia and Asians in a fulfilling and
respectful way. It reminded the class, I feel, that even if you’re not in a high position in the USIP
or a government official or working specially in relations (The women who worked teaching
cultural differences and how to communicate between different cultures for the businessmen she
worked with was also a very interesting field I thought) that it is still worth knowing about how
to interact respectfully with other cultures, and how knowledge of previous less successful
respectful interaction can help you avoid gafs. I thought it was a good cap to the class, and put
into perspective a lot of the things we learned in this course, importance of language, integrating
with local culture, feeling isolated from local culture, etc. In short it reminded me of the practical
advantage of having taken this course, even if none of us specifically move into international
relations, what we learned in this course has practical value for a richer understanding of the
world and a better chance at traveling respectfully.
(1)
-
Krystyn V. Phillips
POL 307
Professor Christoff
12.1.2016
Final Project Interview Report
Section #1
Person Interviewed: Vanessa Johanson
Education: Bachelor degree in Politics, Graduate diploma in Journalism, Masters in Participatory
Development.
Interviewee’s title or position: Country Director, Myanmar. United States Institute of Peace
(USIP).
Date: November 22, 2016
Time: 8:00 PM
Length of interview: 36 Minutes, 53 Seconds.
Objective in conducting the interview: To gain knowledge and insight into the world of USIP
and how Mrs. Johanson’s job fits into the entire spectrum. Also, to learn about her life growing
up, how she became involved with USIP along with her contributions, and to hear her ideas and
thoughts regarding the world at large within international relations.
Section #2
I must say the research behind the interview was just as exciting and fulfilling as the actual
interview itself. I found myself delving into more than just the overall professional bio of
Vanessa Johanson, I became enamored with USIP as a whole and wanted to learn as much as I
could about the organization and its affiliates.
My first action was to give a definition to USIP so I would know and understand the initial
topic, it therefore gave me guidelines in how to look for specific questions to ask during my
interview. I looked into the organization’s founders, current staff, their mission statement, the
work they have accomplished, their “issue areas” (places that hold USIP’s attention such as
women’s rights, conflict analysis and prevention, mediation and facilitation, media, countering
violent extremism, religion, rule of law, gender, education, economics, science and technology,
governance, training, and youth), and what specific countries they have been involved with over
the years.
For her part, Mrs. Johanson is the Country Director of Myanmar, which prompted me to pose
questions about her background and how she became invested in the organization. Mrs. Johanson
has only been with USIP for about a year now but she has worked in Asia/ Middle East since
1996. Prior to USIP, she has held positions at other institutions such as Search for Common
Ground, The Asian Foundation, BBC Media Action, and Internews. I tried not to be too invasive
about Mrs. Johanson’s private life as I wanted to make sure she felt comfortable with me
throughout the entire interview. However, I was able to glean some information about how she
grew up and what drove her to Myanmar. I made points to ask her about leaving her homeland
(Australia) at a young age (22 years old) to engage in another culture. I made notes to ask her
how she felt upon entering a strange and foreign environment; Having to learn whole new
languages and customs. I held particular interest in the latter question because throughout the
“Women in U.S.- Asian Relations” course, when reading about the many times when foreigners
enter another nation, they tend to be offset and not able to fully integrate themselves. I wanted to
see if Mrs. Johanson struggled with any of these hurdles as well.
There was a mental aspect and a physical aspect to the actual presentation. Mentally I was
slightly nervous. This was not in any way attributed to having zero experience, for surely, I have
interviewed others before. No, my anticipation and anxiety came from hearing horror stories of
how classes before me were paired up with grouchy and withholding interviewees. I felt that
with my luck I would end up with a cold person and have to use my considerable charm to open
her up. Needless to say, my fears were allayed when I finally met Mrs. Johanson. She is perfectly
friendly, fun, engaging and most relieving of all, WILLING!! That in itself calmed my nerves
considerably, causing me to have an utterly fantastic time conversing with her.
As to physical preparation, the interview was through Skype (After all Mrs. Johanson resides
in Myanmar, 11.5 hours ahead of U.S. Eastern Time), therefore I was able to conduct it from the
comfort of my own home. This is not to say I failed to exercise professionalism. I made sure that
I was still dressed presentably, as though I was attending a real interview, and I made sure my
surroundings were clean and clear. I spoke clearly and articulately, allowing space for her to add
anything she so wished during my follow up questions.
I began my interview by greeting Mrs. Johanson, introducing myself and engaging in light
pleasantries. I laid the groundwork then smoothly transitioned into my inquiries.
Here is a list of my initial questions:
v --Where were you born? How was family life growing up?
v --Were your parents much involved in your schooling? Were they encouraging as you
reached higher levels of education and began to indicate the career path you wished to take?
v --How were you inspired to join USIP? Although you have lived many places, how did you
land as the country director in Myanmar as opposed to any of the other global stations the
USIP controls?
v --I see that you have worked in some of the harshest environments one of them being
Afghanistan, how did you dispel family and friends concerns when entering into such
dangerous territory?
v --I read that you speak Bahasa Indonesia fluently, as well as conversational Myanmar (simple
Burmese), was it easy to learn? I imagine this greatly assisted you in integrating with
Myanmar, but did you still have to leap over other cultural hurdles? In a lot of my readings
women outsiders found it difficult to fully immerse themselves and struggled to find
common ground so they might go about their duties. How did you gain the trust of your
country’s indigenous populace?
v --When entering into your position at USIP, did you have preconceived notions as to how the
organization was run, did you agree with all of its practices and policies? If there were
instances where you disagreed, what steps did you take to accommodate or compromise?
v --When you initiated peace talks within foreign countries, naturally you interacted with
numerous and diverse ethnic groups. What was your perception of how they interacted with
one another? Were negotiations tentative, hostile, readily received?
v --Within some of my class readings I have noticed that throughout history, the U.S has not
always been seen on the international stage in a favorable light (individually speaking)
whether we are diplomats, doctors, journalist or simple missionaries. How receptive are the
leaders of the countries/groups you have dealt with in regards to the fact that the U.S is
spearheading such endeavors?
v --Many world leaders or just heads of different ethnic groups have voiced varied opinions
regarding the results of our most recent U.S. presidential election. The U.S. is seen as the
leading democracy and a cornerstone of peace and global stability; emphasis on stability. Yet
I have been reading numerous articles written and released by renowned media outlets that
show international heads of states (such as prime ministers, chancellors, presidents, royals
etc.) hold concerns. How will these concerns effect USIP’s missions abroad?
v --How do you think the United states will be seen? This organization is obviously American
based. It talks of peace and wishes to construct congenial ties between two or more parties;
But how does the U.S. intend to display that when they now have cultural/ religious division
in their own backyard? How do we still present ourselves as the “good guys”?
v --Gender issues are one of USIP’s focal issues. Often times domestic violence of nonAmericans tends to be overlooked and attributed to a country’s cultural formation, and
historical precedent. How does USIP hope to spread even more awareness of the plights of
women abroad seeing as these topics are generally in the background when examining
overall conflicts?
v --Professor Christoff’s course centers on the involvement of women abroad. To what extent
have you seen the women in the countries you have worked in be a part of the reformation?
Do native women play a pivotal role in helping to bring about change within their own
societies?
v --I would like to talk about Acceptable solutions: In September of this year an article was
published in which you gave an interview on the results of the Union Peace Conference,
which was created to end the decade long conflict between Myanmar Government and rebels.
You stated that finding an agreement that suits the government and three different factions is
a particular challenge going forward. My question is, with such diverse groups and cultural
disparities, how DO you even start to find common ground? What constitutes an acceptable
solution? How do you make sure every party is equally satisfied with the outcome?
v --Another main route of quelling conflict is the media. From my understanding, USIP uses
this method to reach out to the surrounding communities and globally to inform, connect and
empower. How effective has this technique been (that you have seen)? You yourself worked
with BBC Media Action, while there did you find that providing an open airway started
dialogue between a government and her constituents? Are there any success stories you
would like to share that show a particular area that benefited greatly from this method?
v --You’ve been around the world, seen and experienced alliances and tensions all across the
globe. Are you optimistic about the future of international relation? On a micro scale or
macro scale?
v --Has your career path in any way changed your worldview? Is it significant? Or marginal?
v --During your time abroad, have your perceptions of the U.S. changed while seeing it from
the "outside" so to speak?
v --You play a significant role in shaping the future of those internationally, how would you
like to apply your leadership and shape the future of your homeland’s (Australia) next
generation?
v --What advice (if any) do you wish to pass onto me as I continue my own
academic/professional journey?
As I mentioned earlier, these were tailed by follow-up questions, depending on Mrs.
Johanson’s answers.
Section #3
(1) I did get complete answers to my questions. Mrs. Johanson was very thorough in her
responses, often elaborating and in turn answering questions I hadn’t even thought to ask.
This was extremely helpful.
(2) I would say our interview was more or less “Unstructured”. My questions were
purposefully open-ended so that Mrs. Johanson could expand on an idea or opinion.
(3) I used 7 probing questions (point of view, information, problem, assumption, goals,
clarification, and summarization.) I found these to be the most natural and useful ways of
obtaining the replies I sought. I say natural because most of the time, in normal
conversation, people like to add on and share their opinions; this method allows them to
do so at will.
(4) For this particular project, I did not have a team member. I was given this task to
complete by my lonesome. However, this did not dampen my experience in the least. It
may have been more work to do on my own, but I enjoyed the challenge to see if I could
succeed with just me, myself, and I. I believe I did.
(5) Mrs. Johanson did not give me any specific articles or person to approach. She herself
admitted in her reply to my “Thank You” email, that all of my research was in depth,
well done, and she couldn’t possibly add any more seeing as I had dug into every nook
and crevice already.
Section #4
In almost every segment of our conversation, Mrs. Johanson emphasized the need for strong
communication, consideration, and respect wherever USIP contributed their vast resources. In
doing so I was immediately reminded of the Appiah reading I did earlier in the semester. In that
reading the author spoke highly of respect for another nation’s tradition/cultural identity. In order
to start a dialogue to enact change one must first recognize the heritage that comes along with
ideas. New policies are hard, if not impossible, to implement if precedent practices are ignored.
Mrs. Johanson insisted that USIP allowed themselves to only work with other nations, not for
them. She left no doubt in my mind that change and resolution is a joint effort. All parties must
understand the contributions each bring to the table. Only then can restoration be contemplated.
Section #5
Due to the outcome of the U.S. presidential election, Mrs. Johanson held some reserve as to
how the world would shape up now that the chosen leader of the most powerful country in the
world is controversial. She was careful not to be overly opinionated, however, her sentiments
aligned with the majority of the international world and I found this to be more poignant than
anything. Here I was seeing and hearing firsthand how our country’s affairs were already
affecting those outside our realm. I would have liked to go more in depth with her involving this
outcome, but I sensed that it would be unwise to have the conversation become saturated in that
direction.
All in all, my original questions were given attention and that is all I could ever ask for. Mrs.
Johanson was kind enough to take time out of her morning to sit and have a thoughtful
discussion with me. To end with, I was heartened by her encouragement towards me in my
studies and future endeavors. She wished me good luck and success.
Even though I see my overall interview as an accomplishment, it was delightful to see that my
peers had similar enlightened, fun, and intriguing experiences as well. Listening/watching the
presentations put forward by other students, I began to fully appreciate that work that went into
this project for all of us. Based on the presentations, the entire class benefited greatly from the
exercise and was able to clearly convey the information they received from their interviewees.
A lot of the interviews were similar to mine, in the fact that many of us talked to members of
USIP. I t was interesting to see the many different roles that women play throughout that
organization and how they are using their positions to further relations between the U.S and
Asia. Apart from USIP, it was rather illuminating to learn of the many ways in which women are
touching the world: Through art, commerce, theatre, fundraising, communication, politics, and
just simply by being explorers in their own right.
After seeing all of the presentations it has become abundantly clear to me that being a woman
should first of all never be seen as a hindrance or impairing function. Their unique outlook at the
world around them offers diverse ways of searching out how to impact it. As women, they
cannot always go the route of men and therefore their path provides insights that add to the
sometimes-unorthodox molding/advancement of society at large. Secondly, if there is one thing
that every interviewee encouraged us young adults to do, it was to go boldly and explore. As
simple as it sounds, it was profound to hear it from women who expressed how that notion
caused them to race forward and conquer, grasping for the highest bar and achieving goals they
may not even had thought to set but reaching them nonetheless.
(1)
-
Kyuri Kim, Junbum Hwang, Hosun Jung
AAS307 - Final Paper
December 8, 2015
-
Person interviewed: Nancy Payne
-
Interviewee’s title or position: Vice President of PeaceTech Lab
-
Date, time and length of interview: On Nov 11, from noon to 1pm for about an hour
-
Objective in conducting this interview: Understanding Nancy Payne’s contribution to
US-Asian Relations throughout her careers
Description of the pre-interview research:
Professor Christoff assigned our group to interview Nancy Payne and she briefly
told us who Nancy Payne was. Then, we researched more about her on the Internet. We
used Google for our main research to find out more about her such as biographical
information, her career, PeaceTech Lab and etc. As we proceeded to research Nancy
Payne, we couldn’t find her detailed biographical information such as her youth life but
we were able to find some general information about her. She is currently a vice president
of Peacetech Lab, an organization that spun out of United States Institute of Peace to
specialize in preventing violence and reducing conflicts around the world by using
technology, media, and data. She received her B.A. in journalism from the University of
Nebraska and M.A. from American University’s School of International Service. She has
some teaching experiences at John Hopkins University and Georgetown University. In
addition, we found her career experiences. Nancy Payne started her career as a reporter in
broadcast news and a photographer. She was managing director for communications at
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and a senior partner/senior vice president at
Fleishman Hillard International. She had some interesting experiences in East Asia,
directing all aspects of FH-Hong Kong.
After we did some research on Nancy Payne, we sent an interview proposal letter
to her. We started our letter by introducing ourselves, who we are and why we are
contacting her. Then, we asked her if we can interview her on her career and how her
career fits into the relations between women in Asia and the date of the interview for her
convenience. She contacted us back with her availabilities. Our group members decided
to conduct the interview on the Nov. 11 and replied her back with some of exemplary
questions. After that we couldn't get a reply email from Ms. Payne to confirm the
interview, so we asked Professor Christoff for help. Few days later, Ms. Payne reached
out to confirm the interview. Before the interview, our group gathered and did more
research on her to create some questions that we need to ask for the interview. We sent
five of prepared questions to Nancy Payne beforehand, so that she could prepare for the
interview and understand what the interview would be like. On the day of the interview,
Professor Christoff helped us with setting up our laptop for the interview. Right before
the interview, we reviewed our questions and rehearsed with the questions we had.
Interview Questions:
For the interview questions, we wanted to focus on her experiences in East Asia
and her career at Peacetech Lab. Therefore, we created questions mostly on Peacetech
Lab and some of ongoing projects as well as her unique experiences while she was in
Hong Kong and China. We created some ice-breaking questions for the beginning of our
interview. The lists below are questions that we prepared for our interview;
1. Can you briefly tell us about yourself? (Biographical information mainly focusing on
your early life)
2. How long have you worked for Fleishman Hillard International?
3. Can you briefly describe your role as VP at Peacetech Lab?
4. What are your reasons for choosing to work in PeaceTech? (Your goal, hope to achieve)
5. Can you explain some of the ongoing projects of PeaceTech Lab and
a. What do you expect get out of those projects?
b. Follow up question: Is the “Radio Drama” in South Sudan successful? Is
PeaceTech Lab getting any positive feedback from the audience?
c. Follow up question: Other than countries in Middle East and Africa, are there any
currently ongoing projects in any other Asian countries? (East Asia?)
6. We’d like to hear your opinion on current global issues such as Syrian refugee crisis, ISIS
and nuclear deal with Iran.
a. Follow up question: What can PeaceTech Lab do for solving these issues?
7. Can you please briefly describe about your work experiences in East Asia?
a. (Which Country did you work in for which years and what kind of job was it
there?)
8. What are some interesting differences that you found out between Asian countries and
America? (based on linguistic or cultural differences between two countries)
9. While you stayed (or worked) in East Asia (Hong Kong), did you experience any gender
discrimination/inequality problem?
10. Who is your personal role model? Do you have anyone who inspires you the most?
Did you get complete answers to your questions?
During our interview, Nancy Payne kindly answered all of our questions with
detailed information. However, she seemed difficult to answer a question asking her
personal opinions about current international conflicts. Since she has been interested in
international issues and has been working for world peace, we asked her personal
opinions on such issues. However, she hesitated to answer the questions at first. She
began answering by saying that she is not an expert regarding such issues. Basically what
she said was that there are more things need to be done to solve international conflicts.
Even though it was pretty difficult for her to answer the question, she tried to give us a
complete answer.
Was you interview structured, unstructured, or mixed?
Our interview was a mixed structure format. We asked her questions that are
close-ended questions such as questions regarding biographical information and her
career. For open-ended questions, we asked her personal thoughts/opinions regarding
certain topics such as PeaceTech Lab, experiences in East Asia, and current ongoing
project of PeaceTech Lab. When open-ended questions were asked, follow up questions
were added after she answered depending on the topics.
What probing questions did you use?
Some of the interview questions we had were probing questions such as a
question regarding consequence. For example, “What do you see as the consequences of
the ongoing projects of the PeaceTech Lab?” We also used probing questions regarding
reasons and evidences when we asked a follow-up question, “I’m curious as to the basis
of what you have explained about current projects in South Sudan and Iraq. Other than
countries in Middle East and Africa, are there also any ongoing projects of PeaceTech
Lab particularly in East Asian countries?”
Explain your team approach. That is, who did what?
Throughout the project, we worked as a team most of the time. We divided our
work and contributed to the project. During the interview, each group member had
specific roles. We worked together on researching on her background information
including her previous careers and her current job in PeaceTech Lab. Whenever new
information were found, we shared the links on the google docs, so that everyone could
be notified. We all also worked together on writing an interview proposal email to Nancy
Payne as well as creating questions before the interview. During the interview, while
Junbum and Hosun mainly asked questions, Kyuri took brief notes (Kyuri also asked few
questions though). After the interview, Kyuri organized the whole interview notes and
rest of members edited the shared notes based on the recording file. On the next day of
our interview, we worked together on sending a thank-you email to Nancy Payne.
Did the interviewee give you any documents or references to articles to read, or did she
mention other people for you to talk to (or research)?
She did not give us any documents, references, or articles to read but she mainly
explained to us with detailed examples and her experiences. Especially, when she
explained about one of Peacetech Lab’s ongoing projects called ‘Sawa Shabab’, a radio
drama. She really wanted to share its main theme song with us. After she explained about
the topic of the theme song and how fun it is to listen, she tried to pull up the song on her
computer but after few seconds, she was worried about taking too much time of our
interview. She just recommended us to listen to it later and started to talk about the
second project of PeaceTech Lab.
Interview Notes/Write up
1. Introduction (background info):
-
She was born and raised in Nebraska, America.
-
She graduated from the University of Nebraska as Journalism major.
-
Her grandparents mainly influenced her: Ms. Payne’s grandparents travelled around the
world during 1950’s 60’s 70’s and always came back with good stories and pictures. She
started to be interested in outside of America. She said “They set a tone of curiosity.”
2. Previous Careers:
-
After she graduated from college, she worked as a reporter for 5 years and her interest
moved to public relation.
-
She worked as a public consultant at NYC.
-
After that, she went to s grad school in Washington as an International Relation major.
-
She focused on technology, telecommunication policy with interests in understanding
political system and understanding other countries during her grad school years.
-
She also worked in solving social issues such as starting a communication with youth to
make a better choice on drug uses, alcohol and smoking.
-
She wanted to understand social issues through digital media as well as through
traditional journalism method.
-
She took a job in an U.S Gov. for two and a half years. During that time, she learned
what are the investment projects outside of the U.S. and projects on global development.
3. 2014 PeaceTech Lab
-
PeaceTech Lab is a U.S institution which was established to achieve a peace through
technology and media in 2014. Other than getting funds from people and other
organizations, PeaceTech Lab believes that these three main critical tools can contribute
to achieve peace in the world.
-
Technology provides lots of opportunities to people who have problems and help them to
come up with their own solutions.
4. Reasons for working in Peace Tech Lab
-
She wants to do something which can influence on a broader issue of the world.
5. Challenges for her?
-
Whenever she confronted challenges, she ask herself “who we really serve?” and come
up with her answer “We serve people who are living in those countries in conflict.” She
also said “we always try to have a clear view on who we are serving.”
6. Her role
-
She confronted risk of violence when she visited unstable countries or regions.
-
PeaceTech Lab provides some tools to local community to lower down the risk and try to
provide a stable society.
7. Ongoing projects
-
Media: Technology helps local production companies to provide communicative method.
Ex) Radio drama in South Sudan whose title is “ Sawa Shabab” in Arabic aims to foster
the understanding of democracy, gender equality and human rights especially to young
adults.
-
There are many problems in Sudan; tribalism, national identity and gender inequality.
-
This radio drama teaches young adults gender issues, ethnic group issues and nationality
issues in South Sudan.
-
At the last part of the drama, they ask question to listeners. People can reply to this
question and give feedback to it through social media and text messages.
-
They just finished the second season and going to start the third season.
-
Younger generation can learn how they can get through their problems.
-
In every episode, they get 400~500 call in (great reaction).
-
They conduct a research after every season and the result was that two thirds of the
population said they know the show or have heard about it.
-
Currently they stop doing it but PeaceTech Lab had also launched a project in Iraq. In
Iraq they started a reality show and its target audience is young adults who are under 30.
-
Technology: a project “Peace Tech exchange” researching on particular issues, conflicts
and concepts. (Civil society-it means the NGOs working on social issues and engages in
local society.) They also did workshops so that they could suggest projects and work on
funding.
-
Data: PeaceTech Lab built a data hub. There is no factual data in those countries in
conflicts, such as Sudan and many countries in Middle East. With the data hub, people
can make factual based decision.
8. Thoughts on global issues
-
Data hub can be used to understand what is going on in that country; it gives tools in our
hand.
9. Experience in East Asia after grad school
-
She spent 4 years in East Asia such as Hong Kong, mainland China and Japan.
-
She worked as a general manager (regional coordinator, all around the region).
-
She helped Asian based companies who wanted to expand itself abroad, work globally
and expand itself into multinational company.
-
Her team helped those companies to get into an international market such as the case of
headphone manufacture company in China.
-
In Korea, those processes of internationalization had been going on a lot longer than
companies in China such as Samsung, LG and other car companies like Hyundai and Kia.
-
One of her colleagues was a Korean and she still works there. Nancy Payne worked with
a lot of Korean companies.
10. Any cultural differences and linguistic barrier?
-
She said “Yes, but Hong Kong is very easy, Hong Kong is a bilingual society. you just
have to learn few ‘taxi Cantonese.’”
-
She said most people in Hong Kong speak English, so she just picked 10 Cantonese
words to use in taxi and that was enough for her to live in Hong Kong.
-
She also worked in Shanghai and cultural differences were very profound in mainland
China.
-
It was easy to find cultural differences in day to day basis interaction in business settings
such as “how do you give your business card to someone?”
-
She asked us a question “How do you do it in Korea?” We explained to her how we do it
in Korea- with hands.
-
“It sounds really easy but Americans don’t do that.” Just remembering that and learning
that how to do it in daily basis were the cultural differences that she felt while she was
working in China.
-
The biggest difference she felt was that Americans tend to be very transactional in a
business setting. They just want to cut down to their agenda and cut to the chase what
they want and decision is made. When they ask yes or no questions, they expect you to
answer as yes or no.
-
But in Asian pacific countries, it is very relationship-driven. You need to take the time to
actually get to know someone before you expect them to make a big decision about you
or your company. These were the major cultural differences she felt.
-
She experienced cultural differences and discriminations in other cultures than in Asia
-
She said she was very fortunate in many ways because her team, her working
environment and even clients had a pretty equal mix of men and women.
-
She couldn’t pick any specific experiences that she felt getting discrimination of the fact
that she is a woman by saying, “I’m pretty lucky I guess.”
-
“I saw it and i knew it that there are gender discrimination but i did not experienced it.”
11. Role model / Anyone inspired her
-
She went to Southern Iraq earlier this year.
-
She met a guy who was a pharmacist in Iraq.
-
He had interests in technology and realized that there is no place to go and make things.
-
He found a “Makerspace,” a big area where he could create computer, car and etc.
-
With a kickstarter campaign, he and his team raised 20,000 dollars to start this project.
-
They opened it up to local technology communities and two universities where there are
science and engineering programs. They allowed engineers to come and make stuff and
let people come in by letting them make whatever they can to advance their study.
-
“That is inspiring, we just went there and we saw creatively, incredible sense of
discovery, innovation and technology.” “People are trying to make stuff and getting
excited about their future, make something little bit better for their world that they are
living in.”
-
“There are trash on the streets and this guy just did it with barely no money but with his
intelligence, ingenuity, passion and desire.”
-
“This kind of people that we talk to all the time... We are talking to those people every
single day. They are being creative and come up with better way to live.”
Analysis
-
What aspects of the interview did you find to be particularly meaningful?
Our interview with Nancy Payne was priceless. What is unique about our group is
that all of our group members have East-Asian background. Because we were born and
grew up in Korea, we all have been used to East Asian cultures that are heavily rooted in
Confucianism. It was such a valuable experience for all of us to interview someone who
isn’t from Asian background but has cultural and working experiences in those regions.
Therefore, we were able to compare our experiences from hers and find out some
linkages and differences between East Asia and the US. Moreover, as she showed
interests in East Asia, we could give her more insights on cultural differences that we felt.
The interview was very meaningful overall because we’ve learned so much from
the interview. We learned not only about Nancy Payne’s life and career but also the
influences that she has around some conflict zones. During the course, we’ve learned
about different roles and accomplishments of women throughout the history. The
interview led us to talk to a woman who has actually impacts on the world’s peace.
-
What aspects were not useful? What more would you like to know? What other in-class
presentations did you find particularly interesting?
Everything was useful but a question asking her personal thoughts of current
international issues like ISIS and Syrian Refugee Crisis was irrelevant to the overall goal
of our interview. Since we had noticed her interests in international issues and her
involvement in the work field addressing international conflicts, we wanted to hear about
her personal opinions/advices. However, she had a cautious attitude while answering the
question. The problem is that we didn’t recognize that the question would be a sensitive
topic to Nancy Payne a bit, since she is one of the representatives of the US governmental
organization, “PeaceTech Lab.”
What we would like to know more is other ongoing projects of PeaceTech Lab
using “Technology” and “Data” for promoting the world’s peace. During the interview,
she gave us an example of “Radio Drama” in South Sudan as one of the projects using
“Media.” However, when she explained about the other two tools, “Technology” and
“Data,” she didn’t give us specific examples of any projects using them.
From the presentation about Dr. Latha Chandran, M. D.,we found out an
interesting point when our classmates introduced Dr. Latha’s statement, “Being a women
in India never affected her being in a medical school.” During the class, we learned about
a male dominated medical school in America during 50’s and 60’s and we thought even
nowadays being a woman in a medical field would still affect her. However, unlike our
expectations, she mentioned that entering a medical field is really hard but once students
get into a medical school, then they stand in the same line as everyone starts their long
journey regardless of whether they are women or men. We thought that since all of three
students who presented are aiming to enter a medical school, everything Dr.Latha
Chandran said must have influenced them significantly.
(1)
