Research in sports coaching

Research in sports coaching Coaching In recent years coaching has become a much larger area for research, this is so that the complexity of the coaching process may finally be understood. Due to the nature of professional sport demanding a high quality of coaching there have been rapid developments in coaching as a profession (Woodman, 1993).As a result of this increased need for success in coaching it is becoming more desirable for other coaches to be able to replicate the same coaching processes that have proved successful previously, to do this researchers have attempted to model the coaching process. As thought by Lyle the approach to coaching may be seen as a sequential process, it is described as dynamic and systematic process that follows lots of stages and includes many contextual factors (Lyle, 1993). In similar research by Borrie and Knowles they also agree with the rationalistic approach, this was defined as a ‘series of stages that the coach has to go through to help the athlete learn and improveâ€⠄¢ (Borrie and Knowles, 2003). In lots of research it is clear that many researchers believe the process may be modelled, examples of this are shown by Lyle, Fairs and Sherman. These examples of research show that the coaching process is methodical and may be condensed into a diagram form for representation of how the process is carried out (Lyle, 2002; Fairs, 1987; Sherman et al., 1997). Following a successful representation of the coaching process via a model that can be easily replicated, the potential for improvements in education and teaching of these coaching processes is huge as it allows coaching as a profession to become more effective (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993; Jones and Wallace, 2005). Not all research into the coaching process supports the same argument, for example Jones and Wallace (2005) suggest that it doesn’t follow a sequential pattern and cannot be rationalised. This is due to the process being seen to have too many external factors that have to be included, as a result of this the process is viewed as an inherently ambiguous activity that cannot be modelled (Jones and Wallace, 2005). In recent years Jones et al (2004) have focused on the intricate and dynamic nature of how coaches help to prepare athletes for competition (Jones, Armour and Potrac, 2004). The conflicting research that has been conducted on the coaching process leads to a belief that coaching may be too complex to be modelled as the contradictory understanding affects the accuracy of each model. Although coaching is clearly a very complex process it has still been looked at from a rationalistic viewpoint in an attempt to model the process. Lyle suggests that for an improvement in coaching education to occur we must first understand the coaching process in principle (Lyle, 1999). By using a rationalistic perspective to look at the coaching process Lyle suggests the process can be modelled and will therefore have a subsequent effect on improving coaching education (Lyle, 1999). In the research conducted by Lyle it also suggests that there are two types of models for coaching, these are models of and for the coaching process. Models for coaching come from an idealistic perspective that derives from the use of assumptions made about how the process is carried out; On the other hand models of coaching lean more towards analysing successful coaching practice to produce a method of the coaching process (Cushion et al., 2006; Lyle, 1999).Categorising the types of research helps to i dentify the purpose of current models as well as identifying the structures of such models. In 1987 the objectives model was created by Fairs, this was developed by using a systematic approach to identify the key sections that form the coaching process structure. This model identifies that coaching follows a number of structured stages that are also seen as being interrelated (Cushion et al., 2006; Fairs, 1987). This model can therefore be used to effectively represent coaching in a diagrammatical form, however the nature of the model still allows for flexibility due to an emphasis on analysing and reassessment of targets (Cushion et al., 2006).The objectives model does link in well with the coaching process whilst still being logical, however this model has taken criticism due to the overly simplistic nature throughout the structure of the model (Cross and Ellis, 1997; Jones and Wallace, 2005; Lyle, 1999).The criticism has arose mainly due to the lack of detail when looking into the coach athlete relationship. There are many contextual factors that haven’t been acco unted for which therefore leads to the model not being directly specific to the coaching process (Jones and Wallace, 2005). The main downside to the objectives model is that the athlete coach dynamic isn’t highlighted to show a good representation of the interpersonal relationship that is clear for anyone who has taken part in sport, due to this there is a lack of validity because of the lack of connection to real coaching practice (Cushion et al., 2006). Following the critique of Fairs (1987) objective model Lyle (1999) produced a model that would aim to support that the coaching process does follow a rationalistic and sequential process but also wanted to take into account the complex contextual factors that the objective model lacked. Lyle’s model has also been criticised for its lack of flexibility when trying to adapt to the messy reality of practice (Cushion et al., 2006), for example; the model fails to reflect on how a coach may have to adapt to not many people turning up, this occurs regularly in sport as there is a constant flow of power between the coach and athlete showing that nobody is ever completely powerless (Layder, 1994). Although these models are beneficial to outlining the coaching process and its factors, they are still limited as to how much they can be used as an educative tool, this is due to the overall lack of in depth knowledge relating to the social dynamics that occur between the coach and athlete (Cushion, 2004). As the need for a fixed model to describe and show how the coaching process happens is large research has almost been forced to condense the process in an attempt to conceptualise and rationalise coaching, this however has led to the models being unable to make sense of the ambiguous nature that occurs during coaching practice (Jones et al., 2004; Jones and Wallace, 2004). Although in some cases models have attempted to investigate the interactions between coach and athlete they haven’t been able to understand the realistic complexity that underpins the relationships (Jones and Wallace, 2005). Viewing coaching as an inherently ambiguous activity leads us to begin to see that attempting to model coaching is counterproductive when trying to understand the practical applications of coaching (Jones et al., 2004; Jones and Wallace, 2005). Poczawardowski et al (2002) attempted to understand the coaching process further by taking a phenomenological approach to investigate the coach/athlete dynamic. This approach supported the theory that the athlete/coach relationship doesn’t follow certain patterns and have fixed reciprocal interactions (Poczawardowski et al., 2002). Again the complex athlete coach relationship was found to be unique for each individual interaction, this supports that both the athlete and coach personally author their own actions during the interactions. Jones and Wallace (2005) suggest that in order to improve coaching practice as a whole the coaches should practice situations where they themselves have low controllability and incomprehensibility, this will benefit the coaches as they will develop skills to quickly evolve to changing circumstances that require different measures of organisation and planning, doing so will lead to a more realistic expression of actual coaching practice (Jones an d Wallace, 2005). Using this method suggests that coaching is linked to orchestration as it has been shown that expert coaches recognise the parameters and respond by acting in an unobtrusive and flexible manner so as to adapt to the ever changing situation that coaching is subjected to (Jones et al., 2004). Even though there is rapid increase in acknowledgement of the coaching process as a whole and in the area, there is still a lack of a definitive list of concepts and factors to create a clear conceptual base to understand the coaching practice accurately (Cushion et al., 2006). All of the rationalistic models created to help better understand the coaching practice have been criticised, generally where all concepts fail is in the understanding of the unpredictable situations that arise during coaching, the main part of which is the extraneous variables that occur during both the athlete/coach relationship and factors that may affect training (Gould et al., 1990). Detailed research by Jones and Wallace (2005) and Poczwardowski et al (2002) revealed the real complexity of the coaching process by stating it as an ‘inherently ambiguous activity’ (Jones and Wallace, 2005). After looking at the literature surrounding the coaching process it has become clear that the coaching pr ocess is too complex to be modelled and attempting to do so is counterproductive.

My Favourite Place

MY FAVOURITE PLACE IN MY CITY I am in love with a place in my origin city. It is a special spot for me. It is called El Cejo. My father discovered it to me. He is keen on walking and I have inherited his hobby. Since I have been a child he has taken me to spend the afternoon hiking. This place is located quite near my house but with some steps you have the feeling you are not in Lorca. My region is extremely dry but this place is like an oasis in the desert. To gain access to El Cejo you need to go up a sandy hill. Arriving to the hill the first thing you can find is an imposing castle.Its two towers have been policing the city for many centuries. It dates from the Muslim period when the city played a significant role. It was in the frontier of two important kingdoms in medieval times. In one side of the castle there is a hidden path. This narrow path takes you to my paradise. The ground is red limestone with tiny pebbles. At the start you can glimpse the chain of mountains of the va lley, several reservoirs and farmers working in the countryside. The range of colours of the crops spread over the landscape. Sometimes you can even smell distant bonfires.There are abrupt slopes with cliffs joint by stone cement bridges. The bridges are secured with steel banisters, seeing as the height is considerable. You can find caves carved by the nature and decorated by prehistoric inhabitants with red and ochre drawings. Lizards and birds singing form the inhabitants of this wood. Nobody escapes the eye of the eagles that fly over their home. The pines stand in line like schoolchildren and drop their needles leaves when they are not green any more. The bushes accompany the trees, leaving pleasant fragrances like the rosemary.At the same time, the silence fills the place; sometimes it is interrupted by the barking of the dogs accompanying their owners in a relaxing walking. The paths are sculpted by the footprints of bicycles and hikers. Moreover, there are streams of fresh w ater where you can drink. Steep stairs and uneven ground can be found in some parts of the path. In some parts the way is narrow because of enormous rocks. The vegetation breaks into them. The ground is plastered with roots of trees that quietly have seen the time passing. The sun is always smiling.In winter days the wind whistles around the trunks. In summer days it can be hot as hell. All the plants are resistant to long periods of droughts. The rain is hardly ever present. Halfway there are several viewpoints where hikers sit on rotten wood benches eating snacks to recover from the walking and admiring the turquoise blue sky with clouds like sponges. They can see the valley with its empty river. However, sometimes this river cause fear when it wakes up in rainy periods threatening the city with floods. At the end of the path you can find the reason of the name of the place.Cejo in Spanish is a vertical deep cut in the mountain. At the bottom of it there is a fountain with water a s cold as ice. A legend says that a Muslim princess and a Christian soldier fell in love and as their love was impossible, they committed suicide throwing themselves over the cliff. After that, a source appeared and the people named it after the lovers (enamorados). The people who know this place are like a family. Maybe they have never seen you before but they greet everybody who enjoys the wonders of the place.Walking through this forest it is a pleasure for your senses. You can smell pure air from the nature. Nevertheless, everything is not perfect. You can find rubbish and dogs’ faeces thanks to thoughtless people. People jogging leave the sweat aroma. Normally there are not many people but in September the city holds a sport festival and there is an organized walking to this forest from city centre. Every year the wood meets new people that feel surprised by this heaven. Children walk holding their parents’ hands and adults chat while they enjoy the scenery.I like to take my dogs with me and leave them loose. Therefore, for them El Cejo has a special meaning. It is where they can run freely. Their big ears move like ears of rabbits. They love to speed and stop to smell the scented wildflowers. The path boasts being well-known among nature lovers who can use signs to avoid getting lost during its eight kilometres. It is by far one of my favourite places in my city. Maybe this place is not great thing but for me it is unique. I can relax and forget all my problems.

Research Outline Gay Marriage

Introduction The Controversy â€Å"Same-sex marriage permits couples of the same gender to enter legally-recognized marriages and provides them with the same legal rights as couples in heterosexual relationships† (Same-Sex Marriage). â€Å"Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that the institution of marriage should apply to only unions between one man and one woman. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, they say, undermines the institution of marriage† (Same-Sex Marriage). Where the Issue Stands Today â€Å"In America, six states plus D.C. allow same-sex couples to marry, three more respect marriages of same-sex couples validly preformed in other states, eight provide civil unions or comprehensive domestic partnerships, and three more have limited domestic partnership systems. That’s twenty states plus D. C. that provide some significant state-level relationship protections, and those states are home to 130 million people† (LGBT Relationships).  " Unmarried couples who live together can now tell their Facebook friends they’re more than just â€Å"in a relationship†.The social networking service added â€Å"in a civil union† and â€Å"in a domestic partnership† to possible relationship status options in its user’s profiles in Canada, the U. S. , the U. K. , France, and Australia (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). Thesis: Same-sex couples deserve the same full marriage rights and benefits given to heterosexual couples; marriage is one of the basic civil rights and denying any American that right is unconstitutional. Issue 1: Legislative History First Push For Marriage Rights â€Å"In 1942 the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Skinner v. Oklahoma that marriage is â€Å"one of the basic civil rights. Loving v. Virginia, decided by the Supreme Court in 1967, ended race discrimination in marriage and also affirmed: â€Å"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free me. † These decisions paved the way for same-sex couples to demand equal marriage rights† (Same-Sex Marriage). â€Å"The tide began to turn in 1933, when 3 same sex couples in Hawaii sued the state for marriage licenses. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state was required to demonstrate sufficient reason for denying the licenses, or stop discriminating.In the 1996 trial decision, Judge Kevin Chang ruled that there is no good reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Despite this clear ruling to end discrimination in marriage, Hawaii amended its constitution to block same-sex marriages† (Same-Sex Marriage). â€Å"In 2001, the same year the Netherlands became the first country to to give same-sex couples full marriage rights, seven same-sex couples in Massachusetts who had been denied marriage licenses sued the state. Their case was bolstered by a U. S. Supreme Court decision in 2003, L awrence v.Texas, which struck down sodomy laws and stated that the â€Å"moral disapproval† of voters or government is not a valid basis for discrimination in marriage. In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state constitution mandates equality in marriage for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Three months later the court specified that civil unions did not meet this requirement, and on May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. † (Same-Sex Marriage). Defense of Marriage Act The word marriage means only a legal union between 1 man and 1 woman as husband and wife† (United States Cong. ). â€Å"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or including Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or right or claim arising from such relationship† ((United States Cong. . â€Å"Obama said he would indeed work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, calling it â€Å"discriminatory†Ã¢â‚¬  (Zeleny). Federal Marriage Amendment â€Å"Since 2002 opponents of same-sex marriage have worked to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the U. S. Constitution. This amendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It has been introduced to the U. S. Congress in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2008 but has failed to gain enough support to pass† (Same-Sex Marriage) Proposition 8 On June 16, 2008, California began allowing same-sex couples to receive marriage licenses. But on November 4 of that year, Proposition 8 passed, again banning same-sex marriage† (Same-Sex Marriage). â€Å"California's Proposition 8, which sought to ban same-sex marriage, is an attempt to suppress personal rights and force religious beliefs and codes of behavior on everyone, including non-believers. Narrow-minded interpretations of faith often have led to self-righteousness and oppression of others, and they are again on the rise† (Stone). One might argue that Proposition 8 discriminates against gays and lesbians in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. One might argue that Proposition 8 unconstitutionally limits the fundamental right to marry. One might argue that Proposition 8 violates the separation of church and state† (Stone). Issue 2: Domestic Partnership and Civil Unions v. Marriage Difference in Rights â€Å"The right to marry is not just about the actual legal ceremony, but an equal right to the extensive list of legal protections awarded to married couples.These benefits given to legally married couples range from tax relief to medical decision making. Civil unions and domestic partnerships may seem like equal unions, but the protections they give to registered couples is often far less than that of marriage† (Johnson). Specific Differences in Benefits: â€Å"Marriage: Over 1,049 federal and state level benefits, Civil Unions: Over 300 state level benefits† (Johnson) â€Å"Tax Relief. Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration† (Johnson). â€Å"Medical Decisions. Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions. Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state† (Johnson). â€Å"Death Benefits. Marriage: In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits. Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death† (Johnson). Child/Spousal Support. Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a lega lly-binding financial obligation to spouses and children. Civil Unions: In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state† (Johnson). â€Å"Immigration Rights. Marriage: U. S. citizens and legal residents can sponsor their spouses and family members for immigration. Civil Unions: U. S. citizens and legal residents cannot sponsor non-legal spouses or family members† (Johnson).Public and Political Opinions â€Å"According to a Pew Research Center report in 2009, 53% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but 57% support civil unions for same sex couples† (Same-Sex Marriage). â€Å" In 1996 when Obama was running for the Illinois Senate, Barack Obama stated, â€Å" I favor legalized same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages. † But during his presidential campaign in 2008 Obama shifted his views, stating his support for civil unions† (Same-Sex Marriage). Political ActionJu ne 17th 2009 â€Å"The package of domestic partnership benefits that President Obama established for federal workers on Wednesday drew the loudest protests from some of those it was intended to help, gay men and lesbians who criticized the move as too timid. The administrative memorandum extending some partnership rights to federal workers in same-sex relationships allows administration personnel to take leave to care for sick partners and requires the government to recognize their partners as household members when determining overseas housing allocations for State Department employees, among other things† (Zeleny).But several of the nation's most prominent gay and lesbian political leaders quickly attacked the president for failing to extend full health care benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers, questioning the administration's explanation that it is precluded from doing so by the Defense of Marriage Act, which Mr. Obama had vowed to repeal during his presid ential campaign† (Zeleny). â€Å"†I think it's insulting,† David Mixner, a prominent gay rights advocate, said of the new benefits plan. ‘Without minimizing how it will improve lives to some extent, what they said to us today is we will give you family leave, some things like that, but the most important thing, health care, we're not giving you† (Zeleny). Issue 3: Race and Religion’s Influence African American Resistance â€Å"In our world there are divisions and even tensions among minority groups, and the quest to legalize same-sex marriage has met particular resistance from African-Americans. This isn't a topic that advocates for gay rights or their many black supporters relish discussing, because it focuses on a wedge where they wish there was a tighter bond.But polls indicate that support for same-sex marriage lags among black Americans† (Bruni). â€Å"In 2008 Californians passed Proposition 8, which prohibited state recognition of same-sex marriage, with a 52 percent majority. Voting analyses suggest that between 58 and 70 percent of black voters backed the prohibition† (Bruni). â€Å"Wade Henderson, the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, noted the existence of phrases like †gay is the new black† and said that attempts to equate the persecution of gay and black Americans can be †deeply offensive. †African-Americans were enslaved.And during their brutal struggle for justice, they couldn't make a secret of what set them apart from others, Henderson said during a phone interview Friday† (Bruni). â€Å"Two weeks ago the Human Rights Campaign inaugurated a new effort to move public opinion nationwide by unveiling a video testimonial, being distributed on the Internet for now, in which Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark, speaks up for same-sex marriage, not yet legal in New Jersey. In its infancy the H. R. C. effort, called Americans for Marriage Eq uality, has showcased three prominent black Americans in a row.That's no accident† (Bruni). Religious Reasons for Opposition â€Å"Much of the debate on same-sex marriage stems from religious teachings on marriage and on homosexuality. Islam, for example, officially prohibits same-sex marriage, whereas Reform Judaism has long permitted same-sex couples to celebrate their commitment. The Roman Catholic church opposes same-sex marriage, and American bishops, stating that â€Å"marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman,† strongly support the FMA† (Same-Sex Marriage). The first is that the Church does not recognize an ontological distinction between a homosexual and a heterosexual, whereas modern society, in creating the concept of â€Å"sexual orientation,† insists there is such a distinction. If the Church rejects â€Å"orientation,† how does it deal with the fact that some men are sexually attracted to other m en, but not to women? Isn't it fundamentally discriminatory and unequal to allow heterosexuals a sexual outlet, but not homosexuals? The Church answers this very simply. Homosexual temptation, just like any other illicit sexual temptation, should not be acted upon. (Williams). â€Å"In the Church's eyes, every act of sexual relations must [be] open to procreation. The Church believes human life is always a good thing, and that God wants people to â€Å"be fruitful and multiply. † It also teaches that the procreative act is the way God brings life into the world—remembering that, according to Christianity, human life is more than just the physical body. According to the Church, a married couple participates in God's creation of new life, but God himself is seen as the Creator of new life.Shutting the sexual act off to procreation is literally shutting out God† (Williams). Why Basing Law on Religion is Unconstitutional â€Å"Proposition 8 was enacted by a vote of 52% to 48%. Those identifying themselves as Evangelicals, however, supported Proposition 8 by a margin of 81% to 19%, and those who say they attend church services weekly supported Proposition 8 by a vote of 84% to 16%. Non-Christians, by the way, opposed Proposition 8 by a margin 85% to 15% and those who do not attend church regularly opposed Proposition 8 by a vote of 83% to 17%.What this tells us, quite strikingly, is that Proposition 8 was a highly successful effort of a particular religious group to conscript the power of the state to impose their religious beliefs on their fellow citizens, whether or not those citizens share those beliefs. This is a serious threat to a free society committed to the principle of separation of church and state† (Stone). â€Å"The Framers of the American Constitution knew that throughout human history religious self-righteousness has caused intolerance, discrimination and injustice.It was for that reason that they embedded in our Constitu tion a fundamental commitment to the separation of church and state. The Framers were not anti-religion. They understood that religion could help to nurture the public morality necessary to a self-governing society. But religion was to be fundamentally private. It was for the individual. It was not to intrude unduly into the political sphere† (Stone). â€Å"While religious faiths differ in their definition of marriage, the government has an obligation not to engage in unconstitutional discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.The concept of equal protection under the law, enshrined in the constitution, requires that fundamental rights like the right to marry be made available equally to same-sex couples† (LGBT Relationships). Issue 4: Common Misconceptions â€Å"Gay Marriage is Wrong Because the Bible Says So† A few months back I found myself debating a lady from the General Synod. The presence of a verse in the book of Leviticus was her justification for ar guing against any rights for gays. ‘What about the imprecations against all sorts of dietary laws in the same book? ‘ I asked her. ‘What of the warning against the mixing of fabrics?What about that verse in Exodus, â€Å"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live? â€Å"‘ ‘Well, I don't know anything about that,' she said†(Murray). â€Å"Gay Marriage is Wrong Because Same-Sex Couples Can’t Have Children† â€Å"The idea that marriage is solely for the procreation of children is equally dismissible. Plenty of straight couples, particularly older ones, do not marry to have children. † (Murray). â€Å"There are many gay couples that are in committed and happy relationships. These relationships are often long lasting and sometimes involve adopted or naturally born children† (Johnson). Same-sex couples are raising hundreds of thousands of children in the United States. And, according to a long-term study, those kids are competen t and well-adjusted. The study followed about 80 children conceived by lesbian moms using donor insemination in the mid 1980s. By the age of 17, the kids rated better in academic and social competence and had fewer behavior problems than a nationally representative sample† (Kids Thrive With Two Moms). â€Å"The LGBT Community is More Promiscuous† â€Å"Often, people associate gay men with sexual addiction. However, the majority of gay individuals are no more sexually active than heterosexuals.Many gay men visit bars, clubs or the internet in an effort to find sexual partners, however just as many seek long term relationships in the same places â€Å"(Johnson). â€Å"An aspect of male ‘gay life' some heterosexuals claim to have a problem with is the perceived promiscuity. Whether this is in reality any more distinctive than among straight people, gay marriage offers a remedy, giving gays, like straights, a public and private path towards commitment. At a time wh en many heterosexuals are spurning the idea of marriage, here is a section of society positively lobbying for the right to respect and continue the institution.Perhaps gay marriage will encourage more straight people back on to the marital path? † (Murray). â€Å"AIDS is a Gay Disease† â€Å"Many rumors about AIDS still linger from the 80's. Those misconceptions were based on a lack of understanding and fear. Though the source of the deadly disease hasn't been traced to it's root, AIDS is not just a gay disease† (Johnson). Conclusion Restatement of Thesis: Denying equal marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, and currant legislation that denies these rights should be removed. Why must things change now.Not allowing same-sex marriage denying gay and lesbian couples there constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. The basis for many arguments opposing gay marriage are on religious grounds, and it is unconstitutional to create laws based on a religious view not held by all American citizens. â€Å"Despite arguments that so called â€Å"same-sex marriage† seeks to redefine â€Å"traditional marriage†, allowing committed gay and lesbian couples to marry does not change the meaning of marriage. Gay and lesbian couples want to get married and make a lifetime commitment to the person they love and to protect their families† (LGBT Relationships).

Love and Honor in the Himalayas Coming to Know Another...

The book â€Å"Love and Honor in the Himalayas: Coming to know another culture† is ethnography by Ernestine McHugh. In the beginning of the book, the author talks about how she developed her interest in the field of anthropology during her undergraduate study since â€Å"at that time [she] knew little about [it,] but [she] had mapped out a project relating to culture and the aesthetics of life† (McHugh). It was her mentor Gregory Bateson, under whom she had developed this project who inspired her to carry out this project in Nepal. Although her attempts at writing about her experience failed the first time, during her graduate schooling she was encouraged by her advisor Roy D’Andrade to continue. This book revolves around the ethnic Gurung community who live at the foothills of the Annapurna Mountain; just about thirty miles up from the famous tourist destination in Nepal called Pokhara. At the age of twenty-one, the village where the author lived was called â₠¬Å"Tebas.† Although Nepal is a country filled with people who follow Hinduism and the official language is Nepalese, she chooses a place in north central Nepal where people mostly spoke in their own ethnic language which is very similar to Tibetan on contrary to the popular Nepalese language. In this book she talks about how she fully immerses herself in the field work and in the process tells the story of the people who let her in their house and more importantly made her a part of their family. Throughout her stay she was treated