What concepts, ideas and examples from this text contribute to the theory and practice of archive ethnography?
Overall, Murphy et al. argue in favor of increasing the transparency of ethnographic research and data, though they recognize that ethnographers may differ in their positionality, the populations they study, and their institutional resources, and, thus, the degree to which ethnographers share their data and make their practices transparent, will be made on a case-by-case basis. For this piece, I think the concept of "reanalysis" rather than replication is essential when considering how tranparency and open access can be applied to archive ethnography. Though as the author's make note of, the level of transparency will depend on a case-by-case basis, scholars can use digital media and open access sharing platforms to their advantage as Adema's (2021) piece demonstrates. Ethnographic archives can be used to share and present data for reanalysis in various formats and, with various privacy settings such platforms offer, in ways that can still prioritize the safety and confidentiality of interlocutors. As Murphy et al. encourage, the least scholars can do moving forward is consider the ways they can make their own research practices more transparent and their data more accessible for sharing and reanalysis.
What evidence or examples support the main argument, narrative or e/affect?
Murphy et al. use evidence from the practices and arguments made by current ethnographers and other scholars/experts who have critiqued the data sharing practices of ethnographic research.
Exemplary quotes or images?
In particular I liked this quote which supports the argument the authors made as it pushes back against the notion that transparency is only important in terms of replication; whereas, the authors demonstrate that for ethnographic work, transparency should be promoted in terms of analysis of the work, not its replication:
“The fact that ethnography cannot be replicated or reproduced in the same way that quantitative research can does not mean that it should be immune to calls for greater transparency—quite the opposite. Transparency is crucial for meeting what we think should be the standard by which to judge whether an ethnography contributes to theory building and the accumulations of empirical knowledge about the social world: reanalysis” (p. 43)
With recent advancements in technology and calls within the social sciences to make data transparent and accessible, the authors claim that ethnographers need to reconsider their data management and sharing practices. Murphy et al. argue that transparency of ethnographic data collection and sharing processes is important not for replication of the research, but for reanalysis. The authors focus on four areas of the ethnographic research process (recording and collecting data, anonymizing, data verification, and data sharing) and provide a review of how ethnographers and social science in general could benefit from making adjustments to these steps that facilitates transparency and data sharing.