SEEKING ABOUT SIKH: THE RESEARCHER AS LEARNER

Running head: the researcher as learner 1

SEEKING ABOUT SIKH: THE RESEARCHER AS LEARNER

ABSTRACT

In this ethnographic case study, the author reports an account of how he casts a religious site as a learning space

and position himself as a research site learner at the UG (pseudo) Gurdwara, a Sikh places of worship in the

Western New York Region. Based on the evidences generated from field visits and interview transcripts, the

author argues that this site can be casted as a learning space/community of practice, and documents his learning

experiences and the dynamics in the process during his engagement in the site as a participant observer using

community of practice as a theoretical lens.

INTRODUCTION

Positioning oneself as a ‘research site learner’ may not seem as strange as it may sound given that

the act of doing research, in and of itself, is a learning process particularly when qualitative ethnography is

used as method of inquiry. Even though neither it was the main goal of this research nor it was in my

repertoire to begin with that I would end up casting the site as a learning space; this paper is a report

about an account of how I positioned myself as a research site learner by documenting evidences from

fieldnotes and interview transcripts at the UG (pseudo) Gurdwara, a Sikh places of worship in the

Western New York Region.

I entered this research site with a broad question in mind-‘what’s going on at this particular

site?’ Casting the site as learning space and positioning me as a learner in that space rather emerged as a

major focus of the study later when field work was over and I was trying to make sense of the data.

Almost two months into the research, my own learning has not been an object of the study. Hence, I

didn’t keep any learning journal to track my own learning but, there were instances where I have been

consciously engaged in a number of reflexive practices and decision points during my participation on the

site and later while conducting the formal interview.


As I started coding and creating categories of my data corpus, however, this idea of learning

and looking at the research site as learning space emerged as an area of my interest to shape the direction

of this paper. But, readers of this paper may raise an important question which in fact I have asked

myself. How about studying the learning of the natives about whatever the goals of their learning might

have been? Though this question sounds an interesting one and worth further exploration, mapping the

learning trajectory of the natives requires knowledge of newcomers/novices and old-timers in the

community of practice of this particular site which I hadn’t got the chance to do such detail work due to

short period of experience on the site. But I found an interesting corollary rereading my journey in the

site through the fieldnotes, memos and interview transcripts and map my learning path and its dynamics.

For one thing, I entered in that space with no prior knowledge of the site. Hence, the choice I made-

casting the site as a learning space (a community of practice), and positioning myself as an on the site

learner-in this case a novice who wanted to understand the practices of this community of learners

sounds reasonable. For another thing, natives in the UG identified themselves as ‘learners’ as their

collective identifier name called Sikh signifies ‘ever learner’ or ‘disciple’. The official name of the UG is

also called “Cultural and Educational Society” which is an additional evidence to cast the site as learning

space/community of practice.

The purpose of this study is, therefore, to examine my learning experience and the dynamics

in the process during my engagement in the site as a participant observer using community of practice as

a theoretical lens.

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE

Casting a religious/cultural site such as the UG Gurdwara as a learning space can be

understood better through a theoretical lens popularly known as ‘community of practice’, a family of

socio-cultural learning theory largely attributed to the works of Lave and Wenger (1991). The idea of

envisioning learning as community of practice is a move away from the concerns of traditional notions of

learning that conceptualizes the learner as a receptacle of knowledge and learning as a discrete cognitive


process. Community of practice theorizes the meaning and process of learning as part of a social activity

in the ‘lived-in world’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991). In their broader and ambitious view of learning, Lave

and Wenger contend that ‘In our view, learning is not merely situated in practice-as if it were some

independently reifiable process that just happened to be located somewhere; learning is an integral part of

generative social practice in the lived-in world’(p. 35). This broad understanding of learning extends the

relevance of this theoretical approach to all areas of social practice. As the following quote from

Wenger’s latest work clearly demonstrates, the idea of community of practice encompasses many of

human activities which pull members together based on shared goals and sense of purpose:

Communities of practice are formed by people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared

domain of human endeavor: a tribe learning to survive, a band of artists seeking new forms of expression,

a group of engineers working on similar problems, a clique of pupils defining their identity in the school, a

network of surgeons exploring novel techniques, a gathering of first-time managers helping each other

cope. In a nutshell: Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for

something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. (Wenger circa 2012)

According to Wenger, three factors or elements distinguishes community of practice from

other forms of community formations. A community of practice needs to have a ‘domain’- an identity

defined by a ‘shared domain of interest’ where members have a ‘commitment’ and a ‘shared competence’

with its ‘historicity’ that in turn identify them as a ‘community’ – where their interest in the domain is

manifested by their engagement in ‘joint activities’ through discussion and sharing information. The

third element called “practice” is the fabric that gives life to the community. Members of a community of

practice are practitioners where they build a shared repertoire of resources such as ‘stories, tools, and

artifacts through sustained interaction. Tensions, contradictions, dissonances, confusions and

misconceptions either created within the community or outside such as ideas by newcomers are

generative processes that give life to the growth of the community (Wenger circa 2012).

Given the fact that UG Gurdwara is a “cultural and educational society’ where members

have a shared vision -‘In service of Humanity for the well being of all Creation. Inspired by Equality, compassion,


Mutual Respect, and Social Justice’ (WSC-AR, circa 2012) and it is a community practicing cultural,

educational and religious affairs, I would argue that it fulfils Wenger’s definition of community of

practice. This idea of spotting UG Gurdwara as a learning space - a community of practice, in this study,

is with the assumption that Lave and Wenger (1991) perceive learning as an integral dimension of

community of practice, it then follows that participation in communities of practice will inevitably

involve learning. Most importantly, I am interested in Lave and Wenger’s (1991) idea of “legitimate

peripheral participation” in communities of practices in understanding and explaining my own learning at

the UG Gurdwara. Lave and Wenger (1991) view ‘Legitimate peripheral participation’ as follows:

Legitimate peripheral participation provides a way to speak about the relations between newcomers and

old-timers, and about activities, identities, artifacts, and communities of knowledge and practice. It

concerns the process by which newcomers become part of a community of practice. (p. 29)

For Lave and Wenger, the action of participating or an attempt of an individual to participate

in the community of practice can be read as a way or a need for belonging to the community. Though my

goal to be a participant observer in the UG Gurdwara was not primarily intended to belong to the

community, my involvement as an ethnographer in one way or another has given me the opportunity to

be a ‘legitimate peripheral participant’ not in fact with the intention of becoming a member of the

community of practice. But, indeed I was very much interested to learn about this particular community

of practice, as Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (2011) stated regardless of their immersion experience, field

researchers can only pay their attention as closely as possible, but they cannot become a “member” in the

field. Emerson, Fretz and Shaw (2011) also highlighted that an ethnographer seeks a deeper immersions

in others’ worlds in order to grasp what they experiences as meaningful and important, and he/she learns

what is required to become a member of that world -the peculiar practice of representing the social reality

of others through the analysis of one’s own experience in the world of these others. As Lave and

Wenger (1991) have clearly indicated, the process of understanding the world of others wouldn’t be

possible by being an illegitimate peripheral participant, which in fact there is no such thing called

‘illegitimate peripheral participation’. That means ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ is an integral part of


community of practice since it defines characteristic of membership of a community of practice. A

novice or newcomer who is not yet an official member of the community of practice starts his/her

journey to become one through ‘legitimate peripheral participation’. However, membership or the goal to

be one is not a single sole criterion for a novice or new comer to be a legitimate peripheral participant.

Anyone who shows an interest and started participating in a given community of practice such as my role

as a participant observer can decide his/her role, when to join, and not to join the community (Lave &

Wenger, 1991). In other words, membership is not a condition that determines who shall enter to the

domain of the community of practice. This fluid nature of the notion of community of practice granted

me to talk about positioning myself as legitimate peripheral participant at the UG Gurdwara. In addition,

since ‘Peripherality’ suggest that ‘there are multiple, varied, more-or less-engaged and inclusive ways of

being located in the fields of participation’ and ‘changing locations and perspectives are part of the actor’s

learning trajectories’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991 p.36), my learning trajectory as an on the site learner at the

UG Gurdwara can be traced in line with the various decision points I have been making as a participant

observer on the site during my four field visits.

METHODOLOGY

The study employed a qualitative ethnographic methodology as a form of inquiry to

understand the practices, views, and actions of a given cultural, social or religious group as well as the

setting (that is, sights, sounds) of the location they inhabit, through participant observation and interview

methods (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 2011). This form of inquiry rarely make any sweep assumptions about

the site in the outset. It neither claims that an ethnographer is entering the research site ‘tabula rasa’

rather we often bring to experience “frame of interpretation, or schemata” (Erickson, 1986). But, when I

reflect back to my journey to the research process in this particular study, I entered the site suppressing

myself from reading anything or asking anyone about what Sikhism is and what does a Sikh [temple] does

look like and what and how do people practice in the Sikh [temple] partly informed by the idea of what

Becker cited in Maxwell (1998, p.79) called not to get easily trapped with the “ideological hegemony” of

existing theoretical assumptions. However, there is always an assumption of some sort that we hold onto


in any form of qualitative inquiry whether we have made it explicit or remains as implicit. Aurebach &

Silverstein cited in Saldaňa (2009, p.18) for example, recommended that we need to have our theoretical

framework around when coding field notes to keep us focused. Lindof, Bryan & Taylor (2011) have also

underlined that “theory should inform all phases of qualitative research as a guide to making decisions

and to understand their consequences (p.35).

My first visit indeed disproved this very assumption I have made earlier. As I have been

observing the actions people have been making in the [temple] such as bowing, the different sitting

arrangement for females and males, and many other practices I was able to observe, I was trying to

associate right there while I was in the field with my experiences in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. For

example, I was saying, oh like us, males and females sit on different sides of the congregation; oh, that

thing that I see on the elevated space that people bow to is something like the arch we have in our

church, and I have been making all sorts of association even though they may hold a whole different

meaning. That means, as Erickson (1986) argues, “We always bring to experience frame of

interpretation, or schemata” (p.140) consciously or unconsciously. In fact it is this delicacy and absence

of rigidity that makes a qualitative ethnographic inquiry process a powerful tool to understand better the

ebb and flow of human culture.

With this frame of understanding of qualitative ethnographic inquiry, this study was

conducted in a UG Gurdwara-a Sikh place of worship located in one of suburbs of the Western New

York region. UG is a place of worship and cultural center for a predominately population of Indian

origin. Officially, UG is identified as a “Cultural and Educational Society”. During the time of the study

with the exception of one man who identified himself as white American who began to attend this place

of worship seven years ago, all other attendants were either immigrants or their origin from India

(Fieldnotes, 3/25/2012). UG is a member of the 48 Sikh Gurdwaras under the umbrella organization

called World Sikh Council –American Region (WSC-AR) which is located in Columbus, Ohio. As

member of the WSC-AR, UG adheres to the vision of the WSC-AR -“in the service of one humanity for the


wellbeing of all creations inspired by equality, compassion, mutual respect and social justice”

(http://www.worldsikhcouncil.org).

Participant observation and interview were the specific methods I employed to get into the

world of this particular site. I started my journey to this space on 2nd of February 20012 and ends on the

25th of March 2012, a total of four field visits within a period of two months. 2/5/2012, 2/19/2012,

3/11/2012, and 3/25/2012 were the specific dates I did my first, second, third, and last field visits

respectively. All of these dates were on Sunday morning hours, which is the normal schedule of the

Gurdwara. Though I had two short and informal interviews in the first and second field visits, my formal

[long] audio recorded interview that took a total time of 01:53:39 was conducted in the third field visit.

The first, second, third, and fourth field visit took 3 ½ hrs, 2hrs, 3 ½ hrs, and 2 ½ hrs respectively a total

of 9 ½ hours.

During my field visits, I used junior size 5" x 8" white writing pad to jot down what I was able

to capture from people’s conversations, talks, concrete sensory details, emotional expressions and feelings

(Emerson, Fretz and Shaw, 2011 ), and what I was thinking at that moment was important from what I

see, and also took some notes from screens displayed for the congregation during mass prayer or music

(Keertan) chanted by youth and adults, and information displayed on notice boards in the Gurdwara. As a

participant observer, I was also focusing on some aspect of the ‘semiotics’ of the site (Jorgensen, 1989)-

the various symbols/signs, dressing codes, and ‘do’ and ‘don’ts’ which all collectively tell a story about

the site’s historicity and how it evolves overtime. My major framework of interpretation or understanding

of what is going on in that space was to map happenings spatially and temporally. That means, in all of

my four field visits, my major focus was to be able capture ‘what’ was happening ‘when’, at what ‘time’,

and by ‘whom’ in the site.

On the same day I did my observations, mostly during the evening times, I produced four

detailed separate fieldnotes from what I was able to remember from memory and the notes that I jotted

down in the field for each of the four field visits producing a total of 41 pages 12 font double-spaced

http://www.worldsikhcouncil.org/


Microsoft word document. The 01:53:39 hour’s audio-recorded interview with one senior member of the

Gurdwara was transcribed verbatim producing 26-pages 12 font double-spaced Microsoft word

document.

Though I was able to produce a total of 67 twelve-font double-spaced Microsoft word data

corpus from the field notes and interview transcripts, the entire process of passing through such short

and brief ethnographic endeavor in this particular research site was not smooth and linear. Rather, lots of

decisions have to be made on many important issues from the very first day of entry to the site to the

final exit.

As suggested by Emerson, Fretz & Shaw (2011), I chose the site for a reason that it fulfilled

my criteria of not having any prior exposure or experience of any sort about site selection. I just wanted

to have a “firsthand participation” to a setting which I thought would provide me an opportunity to enter

being novice and navigate through unknown space and make sense of my participation overtime.

Moreover, I founded the site more open and accessible enough to do series of observations, which was

my second criterion of site selection. Though I was able to enter the space unconditionally (in terms of

accessibility), my attempt to navigate freely through was not easy as I wanted it to be as in most cases

information was controlled since I was being purposely steered to certain individuals to share me

information about the site which is discussed in detail in the analysis section of the paper. For example, I

wanted to conduct my formal interview with anyone who would have volunteered to participate for the

interview. My decision to make it such open interview of any member of the natives was actually derived

from my suspicion of why I was being steered to certain members of natives to talk to and not others. I

was asking to myself there was something that other members will tell me but systematically made not

that to happen. It was my curiosity and suspicion that lead me to have my formal interview with anyone

who would volunteer through a random process. My attempt had failed not only because I was steered

to a particular individual but also those individuals who I have had a chance to ask them to volunteer

referred me to certain selected individuals other than them. Therefore, Dr. Nahom (pseudo-name), my


interviewee for the formal interview was one of those individuals who I was steered to talk to for the

interview.

During my field visits, I had been also obligated to follow dressing codes posted on the door

of the main entrance to the Gurdwara such as ‘removing shoes before entering to the Gurdwara’, and

‘covering my head with scarf or any cloth’. Even though following certain protocols and traditions of

natives is “getting close” to the practices and traditions of the natives that would help me observe and

understand them better (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 2011), I would have learned many other perspectives

of the natives as well by either knowingly or unknowingly violating certain codes or traditions of the

natives. For example, what would have had been the reaction of the natives if I entered to that space

without removing my shoes or without covering my head? Such decisions to do something and not to do

other things were indeed a difficult on site problems I had to make quick decisions which outcomes were

unanticipated.

My intention in the whole process of this brief period of ethnographic experience at the UG

Gurdwara wasn’t actually to capture every details of happenings in the site which indeed requires longer

periods of engagement and immersion in the site but also it can be argued that only the members have

the primary account of the details of their thoughts, actions, or culture. Hence, ethnographers’ accounts

are simply “something fashioned” (Geertz, pp.15) and in fact, Emerson, Fretz & Shaw (2011) argued

ethnographers’ account of members’ meanings “are not pristine objects that are simply ‘discovered’, rather are

interpretive constructions assembled and conveyed by the ethnographer”( pp-108).

Therefore, though this research report could have been turned out in many directions such as

writing about a nuanced portrait of the religion and how it’s being practiced in this particular site, I rather

ended up choosing to write about considering the site as a ‘learning space’ and I as an on the site learner

playing dual role as a researcher and a participant. This decision to focus on casting this religious site as a

learning space was partly influenced by the fact that I was steered to particular people for getting

information about the site and also by what I have been perplexed by the intricacies and some


contradictions of what was being purported about the ideals of the site and what was happening on the

site. As a result, I thought that there is no better way to understand the internal dynamics of the site than

casting it as a learning space to map how information is shared, managed, archived and reported.

Though as a learner I had to confess that I was neither conscious of what the goals of my

learning were nor what it was that I would be learning and nor in fact it was in my repertoire that I would

focus on this issue when I entered the space in the beginning of the study, I ended up casting the site as a

learning space and examining my own learning about the site.

DATA ANALYSIS

Though I wouldn’t claim I have employed the full account of grounded theory building

process in my data analysis, I have used some of the features of grounded theory processes such as a

qualitative coding approach where I employed a ‘line-by-line coding’ strategy with a combination of ‘In

Vivo codes’-codes of participants’ special terms (Charmaz, 2006), and some signifying words I generated

that closely approximate the meaning of each line of the texts used in the analysis. The codes generated

through line-by-line coding method produced what Saldaña (2009) describes ‘words or short phrases that

symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of

language-based or visual data’ (p. 3). In fact in my case, the total 67 twelve-font double-spaced Microsoft

word data corpus from three fieldnotes, and one interview transcript were all textual data which were all

subjected to line-by-line coding. But, I would admit this whole process of line-by-line coding was a

messy and at times a very frustrating process but eventually I enjoyed its final outcome. Though I

understood both Dr. Burke’s and Saldaña’s argument that line-by-line coding with the use of words

and/or phrases that closely approximate the meaning of each line of text as a sense making process, I was

struggling with my own preconceived notion that words or phrases may not approximate meaning to the

texts enough and fear for falling to a danger to have a collection of discrete words and/or phrases with

which I my loose to make sense of my whole data. But, my vulnerability to try out this option has indeed


produced what Dr. Burke later commented ‘categories that minimized being unhelpfully broad, and many

of them are clearly specific to my particular study rather than being generic, de facto etic categories’.

After the messy yet very educative process of line-by-line coding of my text-based data

corpus, I used a technique what Saldaña (2009) called codifying -‘a process that permits data to be

segregated, grouped, regrouped and relinked in order to consolidate meaning and explanation’ and

‘organize and group similarly coded data into categories or families’(p.8). This process was an ad hoc on

my part as I was using my own classification reasoning plus my tacit and intuitive senses to generate the

ten-categories for my whole data corpus. The sample of the process of my data analysis to generate the

ten-categories is depicted in the following excerpt directly taken from my interview data (the first column

is the ‘body of the text’, the second column is ‘codes’, and the third column is ‘categories’ (Interview

Transcript, 3/11/12):

792 The only thing which is higher is the Guru Granth Sahib.

GGS is the only high Attributes of God

793 That is a sign of respect and that is fine. Generally in

794 many Gurdwaras, men sit in one side and females sit on the

As tradition men and women sit on different sides

Symbols/Rituals/Artifacts

795 other side just for convenience. But there is no

But not a restriction Misconceptions

796 restriction. A lot of people sit together in many Gurdwaras.

797 So that is one aspect of equality. Everybody sit at the

798 same level. It doesn’t matter you are a doctor or nurse or

No priest Learning

Through the above process, the ten-categories that were generated representing the whole

data corpus were learning, attributes of God, Symbols/rituals/artifacts, Misconception,

Brutalization/discrimination, Equality, Sikhs & Sikhism, Observer’s actions and encounters,

Consciousness, and where knowledge resides. The following is the list of the attributes with the

operational definitions.


1. Attributes of God: This category tells us about what are the attributes of God as perceived and

understood by the Sikh people and Sikhism in this particular site.

2. Brutalization/Discrimination: This category speaks about how Sikhs have been discriminated and

suffered throughout their history and the very foundation of Sikhism is to fight discrimination of any

sort against any people by anybody as described by natives in this particular site.

3. Consciousness: This category defines what a typical devote Sikh’s practices look-like in this particular

site. Natives in this particular site speaks that their practice is the journey of the conscious not the

journey of the body or bodily practices.

4. Equality: The underlying philosophy of Sikhism is equality among all humans with no exception and

fight for it as perceived by natives in this particular site.

5. Learning: This category describes what learning does look like in this particular Site. What is being

taught? Who teaches? Who learns? And how learning takes place?

6. Misconceptions: The philosophy and principles of Sikhism get violated in some practices by Sikhs

themselves and others and it is a result of misinterpreting and misunderstanding the principles as

evidences from this particular site attests.

7. Observer’s Actions and Encounters: This category describes specific and general encounters by the

researcher (observer) in this particular site and how each encounters shape his understanding of the

site and how his actions and decisions influenced the natives’ reactions.

8. Sikhs & Sikhism: This category describes what Sikhism is and who Sikhs are as evidenced in this

particular site.

9. Symbols/Rituals/Artifacts: This category helps us to understand the specific symbols (both physical and

linguistic), emblems, and artifacts that define the identity of Sikhs in this particular site. It also tells us

the rituals or traditions associated with Sikhism as evidenced in this particular site.

10. Where Knowledge Resides: This category tells us who among the natives has to speak and tell to outsiders

about the native culture and practices. Why selective few are supposed to speak and this happens for

whom.

While I was thinking to makes sense of the ten categories and what to do with these

categories, one idea that emerged in the process was organizing all the ten categories around one of the


categories which is ‘learning’. As soon as the idea of casting the UG Gurdwara as a learning space

emerged, I came to sense how the other categories can be linked and analyzed extending the original

‘learning’ category into a theme.

The following graphic presentation of the ten-categories within the three basic elements of

community of practice on what I called the ‘UG community of practice matrix’ is an attempt to show the

network of relationship within the ten-categories and the relationship of categories with the three basic

elements of community of practice. Though categories seem organized around an element that they

approximate to closely define, it rather needs to be clear that this portrayal is not rigid. Each category

provides much more meaning when we read it in networked fashion with other categories than each

individual category alone does. How each category is grouped around the three elements of community

of practice and their relationship to one another and across the elements is discussed in detail in the result

section of the paper.

By casting the UG Gurdwara as a learning space or in the language of Lave and Wenger

(1991)-a community of practice and positioning myself as a learner (a legitimate peripheral participant) at


the UG community of practice, the two research questions that emerged in the analysis were: Is UG a

learning space-a community of practice? What does the researcher’s learning look like in this community

of practice?

FINDINGS

Is UG a learning space-a community of practice?

The first emerged research question during the analysis of the data was whether UG can be

considered as learning space/a community of practice or not. I am claiming based on the data that UG

can be understood as a community of practice. Like any other community of practice, the UG

community of practice has got a ‘domain’, which in this case is the vision and goals of the UG that four

categories seem to fit: ‘Attributes of God’, ‘Consciousness’, ‘brutalization/discrimination’, and ‘Equality’.

According to the notion of community of practice, Lave and Wenger (1991) have argued that what makes

a community of practice different from other groups or communities is that community of practice has

defined vision and goals, and community memory-which is its ‘domain’. Data from both fieldnotes and

interview transcripts support this idea. With regard to the goals and missions of the UG, the following

excerpts from the formal interview transcript I have made with one senior member of the community,

Dr. Nahom supports this argument (Formal Interview, 3-11-12).

D: Okay, S, uhmm…I just want to learn about Sikhism. For someone who wanted to learn

about Sikh, ehe, what can you tell about it?

.

.

.

S: …One universal God and there is a reason why that is very important. One, Universal God, Ik

ōaṅkār the definition has very interesting corollaries to it. Very interesting meaning to it. I

will come to that. That means, if you look at my mother, now, my mother has four sons.

For her, I am not different from the other sons. If there is one mother, one parent and for

that parent, all of her children has equal status. It is not that one is inferior and the other


superior. So, if you have one God, it fundamentally leads you to a very simple conclusion

that everybody is equal.

.

.

.

S: And what people will tell is that there are three main pillars. One is Naam Japna which is to

remember God, one is Kirat Karni in your living honest living, and the third is Vand Chakna

which is share your honest living with others. Earn your honest living, and share your

blessing to others materials or otherwise. And Remember God and things like that. One of

the important things I want to emphasize there, there is a misconception there that Naam

Japna or remembering God is not meant to be a physical activity.

S: These are the three basic, I would say not the basic I would say some kind of code of conduct.

That is you live by these things, and you practice these attributes. The fundamental

principles I would put it for example, in the corporate world today they say mission, vision

and goals.

D: Ehe

S: So the fundamental principles I will put at the level of vision… In terms of equality, one that

one more thing that I think very significant manifestation of that is the Langar system that

is there. The Langar system you may probably know that the one which is the kitchen

service at the end of the prayer service. An important component of that in addition to

serving food and that, one of the most important aspect of that is equality. That was one of

the most important things that Sikhism was started. That is whether you are a high caste or

low caste or a king or a subject, or a Guru, or a disciple or any other divisions, you all sit

together at the same level, eat the same thing together.

S: So, another would be inside the main Gurdwara hall, everybody sit together. Of course, some

people argue that even though you are handicap, you shouldn’t sit on chairs. Some people

do that. But that again is over ritualizing it. The only thing which is higher is the Guru

Granth Sahib. That is a sign of respect and that is fine. Generally in many Gurdwaras, men

sit in one side and females sit on the other side just for convenience. But there is no

restriction. A lot of people sit together in many Gurdwaras. So that is one aspect of

equality. Everybody sit at the same level. It doesn’t matter you are a doctor or nurse or a

janitor. You sit on the same level. There is no caste distinction. There is also another thing


for that. Anybody can do anything. Young, old, man, woman can wave behind the Guru

Granth Sahib. In any of the regions ceremonies, there is no restriction. It is not like only

man can do it. There is no qualification you need to do any service in the Gurdwara. There

is no restriction who does what. Whether reading of the scripture- that is Guru Granth

Sahib, reading hymns, in formal ceremonies, such as marriage, it is not only like a priest can

do it or certain qualified man can do it. There is nothing like that. There is absolutely no

priesthood. Absolutely no priest in Sikhism!

A similar explanation about the fundamental principles of Sikhism was also given by a Lady

whom I had an informal conversation during my second field visit as indicated in the following sections

taken from the fieldnotes (2nd Fieldnotes: 2-19-12).

There are three fundamental principles of Sikh: Naam japna, Kirat karo and Vand chakko.

One is keeping God in your mind. God or whatever you believe. That should be in your heart

or in your mind. If you keep God in your heart, you don’t do anything bad. We know that

everybody is given by him. And we own each other. And the second is honest living. Make

honest living. It doesn’t matter what profession you have, make honest living and so that you

share that living with others. That is basically, we can say the foundations of Sikhism stands on

that principle. Honest living and share that living with others. That is why at the end of the

service, we serve the Langar as part of the community kitchen. It is coming from everybody’s

hardworking money and they are served, ehe… there is no discrimination. You are welcome

and well received.

The above two excerpts from the interview transcript and fieldnotes clearly shows that the

three fundamental principles of Sikhism: Naam Japna, Kirat Karni and Vand Chakna are visions/goals

that bind the UG community together. Beneath these principles are embedded meanings of

“consciousness” and “equality”. The idea of a “universal God” mentioned in the above excerpt from

the interview demonstrates that this very idea axiomatically affirms the notion of equality of all human

beings. This idea of equality is not only an idea for the Sikhs, they live it. They do and practice equality in

the Gurdwara. As evidenced in the above excerpts and also witnessed during my four field visits that

there wasn’t distinction of labor or activity be it in the Main prayer Hall or in the Langar: that boys and

girls, men and women were all doing every aspect of religious practices such as leading hymns, standing


behind the Guru Granth Sahib, singing, leading group prayer, serving the Langar, etc. Either in the Main

Prayer Hall or in the Langar hall, they all sit on the floor.

‘Consciousness’ is another important concept embedded within the fundamental principles.

According to Dr. Nahom, my interviewee:

One very significant aspect of Sikhism is that it is not a journey of the body, it is a spiritual

journey… it is not what your body does; it is what your consciousness follows, what your conscious

understands. So what that does is, frees us from our rituals. So, all bodily rituals don’t have any

meaning. (Formal Interview, 3-11-12)

Dr. Nahom argues that forgetting this central essence of the practices in Sikhism lead some

members to fall into unconscious and non-critical adherence to traditions and rituals. For example, some

members think that taking ‘ritual bath cleanses them’, but the Guru Granth Sahib says ‘taking ritual bath

doesn’t cleanse you’. Some members ‘go flat behind the Guru Granth Sahib’ and this too for Dr. Nahom

is too ritualistic. According to Dr. Nahom, what is important in Sikhism is to understand the essence of

the fundamental principles and ‘live them’ (Formal Interview, 3-11-12).

With regard to community memory, the category “discrimination/brutalization” is one good

example which explains the UG community of practice has a collective history. In a sense, this history of

discrimination/brutalization is the foundation of the community itself. The following excerpt explains

that the history of this community begins with the history of discrimination and brutalization.

At the fundamental level, that is how the story goes that Guru Nanak-the first Guru who started

Sikhism, among the first thing, not among the first kind, I think it is the first thing that he supposed,

he is known to have said is in the Indian context in which he was there, there were a lot of disputes,

fights and disputes and fights are mild words, a lot of brutalization , a lot of savagery, a lot of

suppression in the name of religion and the two major religions at that time in India which were at

odds to each others were Islam and Hinduism. This is not for me to say that other religion is good

or not. Because one of the main fundamental, another principle that Sikhism has is that if you are a

Hindu, be a good Hindu, if you are a Muslim, be a good Muslim, if you are a Christian, be a good

Christian (Formal Interview, 3-11-12).


To remember such historical facts and events, therefore, the UG community of practice has a

session in their regular schedule on every Sunday called ‘history session’, a time when some historical

events and facts narrated and remembered (4th Fieldnotes, 3-25-12).

It is also a ‘community’ where the ‘Sikh and Sikhism’ as a category can help to explain this

notion of community of practice. The official name of the UG Gurdwara “XX Cultural and Educational

Society” itself is actually self-explanatory for the fact that it is a community. As a community, the UGs

pursue their interest in their domain, through various ways. Members engage in joint activities and

discussions during the various sessions in their regular Sunday Schedule such as ‘Asa Di Vaar’ - when

they read in group and discuss about a collection of ‘pauris’ or stanzas written by the founder of their

community or Sikhism- Guru Nanak; during ‘Kirtan’ session through a ‘call-and-response chanting’, they

praise the Lord and the Gurus; during the ‘History Session’, they remember the facts and events of their

history, help each other, and share information; and during the ‘Langar’ time-not only they eat and drink

together in the community kitchen but also they build relationships that enable them to learn from each

other (4th Fieldnotes, 3-25-12).

The third element in the theory of community of practice is the concept of ‘practice’ - a

shared repertoire of resources such as ‘stories, tools, and artifacts that a community’ is engaged in (Lave

and Wenger, 1991). The category that can easily fit into this concept is ‘symbols/rituals/artifacts’ which

actually are the community’s collective properties. These are identifiers of the community which came

into being through ‘learning’-through ‘practice’ in a social and historical context. The ‘explicit and tacit’,

‘what is said and what is left unsaid’, ‘what is represented and what is assumed’-the ‘language, tools,

documents, images, symbols, codified procedures, regulations; tacit conventions, subtle cues, untold rules

of thumb’ (Wenger, 1998, p.47), all these are manifestation of practice that gives structure and meaning

to what a given community of practice does.

The tacit conventions of the UG community such as ‘taking off shoes while in Gurdwara’,

‘covering head with turban or piece of cloth’ (1st Fieldnotes 2-5-12); ‘metaphors-the Sikh epistemology’


(Formal Interview, 3-11-12), the ‘Khalsa’ (a baptized Sikh) traditions- ( ‘Kesh’ (uncut hair), ‘Kanga’ (a

wooden comb), ‘Kara’ (a metal bracelet), ‘Kachera’ (a specific style of cotton undergarments) and ‘Kirpan’

(a strapped curved sword) (2nd Fieldnotes, 2-19-12); the rituals such as bowing to the Guru Granth Sahib

and waving ‘Chaur Sahib’ around the Guru Granth Sahib as a sign of reverence and respect for the

scripture; and the musical instruments such as the ‘Harmonium’ and ‘Mardanga’ (2nd Fieldnotes, 2-19-12)

are all the various manifestation of practices at the UG community of practice. For example, Dr. Nahom

explains ‘Music is a universal language. Music resonates body and conscious. That is why it is part of the

tradition and very much all other symbols have the same kind of historical beginnings’ (Formal Interview,

3-11-12).

The category ‘misconception’ though grouped under the ‘domain’ element in the UG

community of practice matrix, it is an important category serving as a source of engine to the generative

process of community of practice. Misconception within the UG community of practice can be taken as

an important element in the generative process of the community of practice than what it connotes. The

presence of ‘misconception’ and ‘misunderstandings’ that Dr. Nahom was emphasizing in the interview,

when he was saying “…one of the major reasons to my understanding of having that body of water

around the Gurdwara, not for spiritual cleansing…you would see ignorance on the majority of Sikh

having this misconception” (Formal Interview, 3-11-12) may connote negative meanings. However, Lave

and Wenger (1991) argued that ‘communities of practice are engaged in the generative process of

producing their own future’, (p. 58) and this process isn’t linear and smooth rather it is a process of

resolving conflicts and clearing generative misconceptions. They continued this argument saying that

‘because of the contradictory nature of social practice and because learning process are the working out

of these contradictions in practice, social reproduction implies the renewed construction of resolutions to

underlying conflicts’ (p.58). Therefore, the ‘misconceptions and misunderstandings’ that exist within the

UG community of practice can be taken as a generative process and mainly important for the

community’s memory acting as a tool or a lens to understand the history of their present. Understanding

the historicity of the existing misconceptions and misunderstandings can be a useful generative process to


transform the community through understanding what Dr. Nahom said in the earlier excerpt, every ritual

and symbols have some sort of historical beginnings.

The other two categories: ‘where knowledge resides’, and ‘observer’s actions and encounters’,

are variables or situations that I thought would help to understand the ‘changing forms of participation

and identity’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 56) of my overlapping interests in presenting myself as a

researcher, ‘the newcomer’ and /or participant observer in the UG community of practice.

What does the researcher’s learning look like in this community of practice?

With regard to tracing my own learning or in the language of Lave and Wenger (1991) - my

participation in the UG community of practice, I am not here to report how much I have acquired

overtime, since learning in the lens of community of practice is not an acquisition of certain forms of

knowledge, it in contrast is ‘increasing participation in communities of practice’ (Lave and Wenger 1991:

49). Rather, I am reporting the intricacies and subtleties of the process I have passed through. Lave and

Wenger (1991) have also acknowledged that the essence of learning in community of practice lies in the

‘process’ (p. 51) as initially newcomers join a given community of practice and learn at the periphery, then

eventually move from ‘legitimate peripheral’ participation into 'full participation’ (p. 37). But viewing

‘learning as legitimate peripheral participation means that learning is not merely a condition for

membership, but it is itself an evolving form of membership (p.53). This idea helped me to understand

that the purpose of my learning or participating in the UG community of practice wasn’t aimed for

membership in the community rather my curiosity of knowing what this community of practice look likes

and an attempt to ‘understand’ - or to participate as a participant observer from ethnographic

perspective, and a ‘peripheral participant’ from the perspective of community of practice.

Lave and Wenger (1991) introduced this idea of analyzing the ‘changing patterns of

newcomers’ using legitimate peripheral participation as an analytic viewpoint on learning or

understanding the identity of participants as they move from newcomers to old-timers. I am also

interested to analyze the ‘changing forms of [my] participation and identity’ from the time of entry to and


exit from the site and how the position and decisions I took impacted my participation, and how my

positions and decisions were influenced by the actions of members I encountered overtime through

‘legitimate peripheral participation’ as a way of understanding learning.

I will approach this analysis into ways. The first one is discussing about the ‘changing forms

of [my] participation’ when I was simply a ‘spectator’ - just watching and listening and jotting my

interpretation of what I see and listen - when no verbal conversation was happening. The second aspect

of it is when I talk to people-interact with them, in the language of Wenger (1998) when there is ‘mutual

recognition’ (p.56). My participation during my four times field visits to UG community of practice was in

both ways-spectator and conversational. Particularly during my first field visit, as the following excerpt

explains, my participation was limited to describing symbols, objects, colors, in general terms, the physical

aspects of the site or to speak in Wenger’s language ‘reifications’ (1998, p. 61) in a language very far from

the language of what the natives describe and name those objects and actions.

I am getting very interested to know much more about what Dr. Amarajit told me the underlying

principles and values of the Sikh. Particularly, I want to know more about what he said “universal

equality of men”, respecting all human life but defending oneself at the same time unlike Gandhi’s

proposals of peaceful struggle. But I am also worried that I may miss important things to learn from

side conversations from the people, but they speak Punjabi. That is why my Today’s description of

the site and what I have observed was limited to the description of the space, symbols, signs, posts,

of what people wear and the like. (1st Fieldnotes, 2-5-12)

Even at time when I was able to capture words and phrases as spoken, those words and

phrases were not mean anything to me nor provide me a door to access the inner world of the UG

community of practice, in a sense my participation was limited. But it is interesting to note here, however

that as a spectator and mere ‘jotter’, right in the beginning of my first field visit, I also jotted that “As we

enter the Main Prayer Hall, I saw him bowing right after he entered the hall, and I did the same and he

pointed me where I can sit” (1st Fieldnotes, 2-5-12). Would me bowing by simply seeing others bowing

but not even know who or what I was bowing for considered as participation in the community of

practice? For Lave and Wenger (1991), yes, indeed it is a form of participation no matter how natives


would perceive it. But, was this participation close enough? Still Lave and Wenger (1991) would argue

there is no such thing ‘close enough’ or ‘less enough’ participation as they argued that “there may very

well be no such thing as an “illegitimate peripheral participant”…similarly, with regard to “peripherality” ,

there may well be no such simple thing as “central participation” in a community of practice’ (p.35) rather

‘peripherality, when it is enabled suggest an opening, a way of gaining access to sources for understanding

through growing involvement’ (p. 37).

When my legitimate peripheral participation changes from mere jotting of what I saw and

listen in the community of practice to having a conversation with one or more members/natives, it

completely changes the dynamics of my participation. The conversation opens another window of

looking at the UG community of practice - an opportunity to understand the implicit meanings and

historicity to the various symbols, insignia, artifacts, and rituals. For instance, in my description of the

space that I have observed during my first field visit, my description of the Khanda, which is the Sikh

emblem, was indeed very descriptive and rich, yet I may not have learned anything about why this

particular symbol, kind of questions, and its historical meaning without having the conversation that I

have made with one of the natives as the following excerpt depicts.

On the elevated platform of the throne-like stage, there is a rectangular shaped material covered

with colorful cloth. The throne is structurally built on the top with two dome shaped structures in

the middle and underneath with a colorful canopy right above the rectangular material. On the left

and right side of the structure, patches of flowers are placed on long flower stands. On the

structure of the throne, there is an emblem (symbol) on top of the structure as well as on the floor

of the structure. In the center, the double edged sword surrounded by a circular quoit and on either

side, crossed daggers (1st Fieldnotes, 2-5-12).

But, when I had the following conversation with one of the natives later that day, I came to

know the historical roots of the artifacts. In fact, it wasn’t on my part a desire to know about the why

questions that lead to this understanding, but it just emerged in the conversation. During our

conversation, the meaning I have about ‘sword and daggers’ was conflicting with what I was hearing in

the conversation from Dr. Amarajit, words such as ‘equality’ as identity of the UG community of


practice. But then, later in our conversation, the idea of non-violence struggle provided me the

embedded meaning within the Kanda.

He told me that, the Gurus found this religion during the period of the kingdoms in India. Hence,

as he said, the throne-like structure symbolizes that tradition from the culture and practices of the

kings. The one which I called it the Rectangular structure/material is actually the main big thing that

people are bowing to and called ‘Guru Granth Sahib’ as Dr. Amarajit explained it to me. According

to Dr. Amarajit, it is a very big sacred book. The Gurus between “1666 to 1708”, he said, they have

been unhappy with what was being practiced in the then India about the cast system and the

aggression of the Islam. Our religion as our Gurus thought us, he said, is based on the principle of

universal equality of all men irrespective of their religious practices or any other differences. But, Dr.

Amarajit said, unlike the ideas of Gandhi’s non-violence and peaceful struggle, the Gurus believed

that we need to be strong and together to defend ourselves but condemn aggression. Therefore, he

said, our symbols and emblems show these values and principles of the Sikh religion and culture. He

said, “We bow to the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book. Is it not interesting to bow to the ideas of

our Gurus, their highest thoughts? The Gurus cannot live with us in blood and flesh but their

thoughts do. And their thoughts are in this holy book, and so does our prayer and bows goes to [It]

make more sense”.

Dr. Amarajit idea of Gandhi’s non-violence and peaceful struggle in the conversation was

actually a response to the question that I raised to him if what he was trying to tell me about issues of

equality was similar to what Gandhi had been advocated for. This question was partly confusion on my

part - for one thing he was telling me about how much Sikh people fundamentally believe on the essence

of equality of all humans. On the other hand, the insignia or emblem (double edged sword surrounded by a

circular quoit and on either side, crossed daggers) of the Sikh is telling me a different story. In my experience, or

somehow I associated ‘sword and daggers’ less with equality but more to aggression. But through my

sustained conversation with Dr. Amarajit and later in my interview with Dr. Nahom as documented in

the previous excerpts, I came to understand that Sikhism was founded not through peaceful struggle but

through furious fight against the then caste system in India which had put many of their ancestors in

vulnerable situations. Even to-date, the ‘Khalsa tradition’ in Sikhism teaches how to defend oneself and

fellow humans against aggressors. I wouldn’t learn how much the essence of ‘equality’ is this much deep


and connected to the foundation of the religion itself and it indeed is a ‘survival issue’ for the Sikhs, in

the absence of having such kinds of conversations with the natives.

Finally, I would like to note that I am not here arguing a participant observer or in the

language of community of practice-a legitimate peripheral participant in a given community of practice

would understand better the inner workings of a given community when he/she engages in ‘verbal

conversation’ with the natives than he/she merely act as a ‘spectator’ despite the plausibility of my data

supporting the former. Because, my interpretation of the data the way I did was merely a matter of what

kind of question I have asked for investigation in the data. I was looking for why certain things are the

way they are but not something else, or why natives where doing this but not that, kind of questions.

These kinds of questions require further exploration, and one way to do this was to have a conversation

with the natives.

LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

To get a full account of an ethnographic work for a site like this requires long period of

engagement and fieldwork. However, the limited time period I have in the field might have influenced

the interpretation and findings of the study. Another interesting problem during my field visits was the

way I was steered to particular individuals to get access to information about the site. This definitely

might have impacted what I have got from the site. For example, would have it been the same kind of

information I would have gotten if my interviewee could have been just one random member in the

community but not the professor? My guess is, it could have been so. Moreover, the way I positioned

myself during the interview (letting the informant ‘to lecture’) might have masked to get into the untold

stories.

They way I ended up interpreting my experience at the site-spotting it as learning space

rather than presenting the portrait of the religious and cultural practices, which I guess, the natives would

like it to have, had also restrained me not to conduct members’ check for validation. This not only

impacts the validation of my interpretation but may also raise ethical issues.


CONCLUSION

This study was an attempt to explore a research site where the researcher had a limited

background knowledge or experience about the site in the beginning. Casting a religious site as a learning

space and presenting an account of the researcher’s experience as a learning moment and how that

learning look likes and what was the dynamics involved in the changing patterns of my understanding

about the site was simply to document my interpretation of the site. This by no means could be taken as

what really this site is all about. Everything that I saw, experience and document about the site - what I

have said, and what I haven’t, what was included and what was left out, what was emphasized and what

was silenced were all depended on who I was for the natives (a researcher) and who I wasn’t (Sikh)

during the period of my ethnographic experience on the site.

The experience that I documented in this paper with all its limitations, however, could be

used as an additional source for future ethnographic research on religious sites like the UG Gurdwara.

Particularly, the way I cast this religious site as a learning space employing community of practice as a

theoretical lens may add an additional source to the community of practice literature.


REFERENCES

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis, pp. 42-

71. London: Sage.

Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd Ed.). Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of

research on teaching, (pp. 139*-161). Washington: AERA.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of

cultures, pp. 3-30. New York: Basic Books.

Jorgensen, D. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies. London: Sage.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of

Cambridge Press.

Lindlof, T., & Taylor, B. (2010). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd Ed.). London: Sage.

Maxwell, J. A. (1998). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D.J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of

applied social research methods, pp. 69-100. London: Sage.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage.

Wenger, Etienne (c 2006). 'Communities of practice. A brief introduction'. Communities of practice

[http://www.ewenger.com/theory/. Accessed April 21, 2012].

Wenger, Etienne (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

WSC-AR (c 20012). World Sikh Council - America Region. ‘Mission, Visions and Goals’

[http://www.worldsikhcouncil.org/index.html. Accessed April 22, 2012].

http://www.ewenger.com/theory/

http://www.worldsikhcouncil.org/index.html

SEEKING ABOUT SIKH: THE RESEARCHER AS LEARNER

Documents

Transcript of SEEKING ABOUT SIKH: THE RESEARCHER AS LEARNER