tle bit more. I like how she stepped into the elderly shoes in her research to see what the elderly had to go through on a day to day basis and learned what their worries and discomforts were. Horowitz pros and cons would be being female and a reporter she failed in getting personal information about, hopes, relationships, and families. She was also seen as too much as a "lady." The positive side was that she "maintained a degree of distance and legitimacy as a woman amongst men."(Horowitz, p. 53) Andersons approach was good in the way that he stood outside and looked in on the situation. He discovered the social order of Jellys and became "cousins" with Herman, which often happens in those types of atmospheres. The bad thing was that Anderson did not do anymore research in that he did not go out and interview more people in bars to see if his research was true about regulars and outsiders. I believe in Andersons case he had the better chance of accessing data and receiving more insight from others because he was a black male and infiltrated Jellys successfully and learned more about the streets and his identity then any researcher. Horowitz fit in to her surroundings in Chicago, but did not really fit in with the neighborhood teenagers she was always looked at as an outsider or "reporter." Myerhoff really went into her study blindly, but with the intent of learning more about the elderly and her Jewish heritage. If she had a little insight and understood some of her surroundings and religion she would have had an easier time with finding out more information from the elderly. Using the authors field research I felt that many of them tried to enter their situation as an outsider looking in as most researchers do. Given time most of them were able to some what be accepted into their social surroundings. No matter what role or relationship the researchers developed along the way they still had to make choices to would affect...
