The good practice is simple. The participants sit in a U shape. The instructor stands in front of the first of the participants, either on the left side or the right side of the U. The instructor is facing the participant while holding a camera (or smartphone) pointed at the face of the participant.
The instructor asks the participant the following question: Who are you until now. While asking, the instructor gives the participant full attention. This means: being fully focused on this participant and not making any references to anything or anybody beyond the here and the now. The instructor implements intense listening, patience, good will, honesty and respect.
When the question is answered the instructor moves to the next participant, again with the camera pointed to their face, and asks the same question.
The theory behind this question is that, according to Anthony Giddens (Modernity and Self-Identity, 1991), we all have a default narration about ourselves available. This narration should be internally consistent and should exclude other narrations about one’s self.
As we found in the project Dynamiczna Tozsamosc, 2012 and later on in the projects Dynamic Identity, Talking about Taboos and Identifeye, participants do not have a default narration prepared to answer our question: Who are you until now? Rather, participants seem to construct a narration semi-spontaneously on the spot, weighing what is being asked from them and how earlier participants framed their answer. This is in line with the theories of Zygmunt Bauman (Identity, 2004; Liquid life, 2005; Liquid times, 2007) who states that in our times we do not try to build one, definite narration out of the puzzle pieces that make up who we are, but that we all the time reconfigure the puzzle pieces and fit them to the circumstances.
The camera (or smartphone) is to balance out the feeling of intimacy that full attention by the instructor causes. This confusing duality is, according to E-LAB, the hallmark of our technological times. By means of the camera and full attention at the same time the instructor simulates the online environment.
The aim of this good practice is to show that our identity narrations are constructs and thus are open to change.
After all participants have answered the same question individually, the instructor shows patterns in the answering. Mostly it will be the case that the first person takes the longest to answer. Applying Erving Goffman’s insights (The presentation of Self in everyday life, 1959; Frame analysis, 1974) this would be because there is no apparent frame ready for this participant to build upon. There is no ready-made mould to model the answer after.
The second and following participants typically answer quicker. For them a mold does exist – the one created by the first participant.
If the participants have mostly or exclusively used the frame that was created by the first participant, it can be concluded that the participants are highly open to peer pressure.
A second element of analysis is self-reporting by the participants. Why did they select some identity characteristics (for instance: age, hobbies or roles they fulfill in life) and not others (for instance: ethnicity, current mood or occupation). By discussing why certain elements were selected and others weren’t the importance of different identity labels for the participants present can be established.