The book I got to read for the fishbowl discussion was The History of Bees by Maja Lunde. This was a unique book to read since it was one of the only fiction books that was an option for students. The book was also unique in that it followed three distinct perspectives of people that lived in three completely different times in history. William is a former naturalist living in England in 1852. George is a small-scale honey farmer in Ohio in 2007. Tao is a field worker in China in 2098. Overall, it explores the human-bee relationship in the past, present, and ultimately the future when there are no more bees. Towards the end of the novel, we also discover that all three stories of William, George, and Tao are connected. William is actually George’s ancestor and the blueprints that George uses to build all his beehives were originally designed by William. George’s son Tom writes a novel called The History of Bees that Tao eventually reads in the future that helps inspire her and gives hope for when the nearly extinct bees are rediscovered. This novel helps paint what the future could look like without bees and ties in important themes involving family, depression, and hope for the future. Overall, it was a very enjoyable read that also provoked deeper thoughts on how the impacts humanity makes now and impacts made in the past can influence the future.
During the actual fishbowl discussion, I was part of the last group that discussed whether fiction and film should be considered Art Based Research. The fish bowl discussions themselves were a rather interesting experience in and of themselves since for the first two discussions I was resigned to being an observer and couldn’t actually contribute any of my inputs. I think being able to observe how others present themselves in a discussion and how they raise their points and play off other comments allowed myself to better refine how I prepared to discuss my topic. By taking notes on what the other groups discussed and analyzing the points that I would have raised had I been part of the discussion, I more clearly outlined my ideas for the discussion of the topic I eventually took part of. I also attempted to moderate the discussion to a certain degree because I felt that the previous discussions got off track at certain points. Overall, I felt my discussion went well and we were able to address all aspects of the question and reach a consensus after thoroughly exploring the issue with specific examples.
During the actual fishbowl discussion, I was part of the last group that discussed whether fiction and film should be considered Art Based Research. The fish bowl discussions themselves were a rather interesting experience in and of themselves since for the first two discussions I was resigned to being an observer and couldn’t actually contribute any of my inputs. I think being able to observe how others present themselves in a discussion and how they raise their points and play off other comments allowed myself to better refine how I prepared to discuss my topic. By taking notes on what the other groups discussed and analyzing the points that I would have raised had I been part of the discussion, I more clearly outlined my ideas for the discussion of the topic I eventually took part of. I also attempted to moderate the discussion to a certain degree because I felt that the previous discussions got off track at certain points. Overall, I felt my discussion went well and we were able to address all aspects of the question and reach a consensus after thoroughly exploring the issue with specific examples.