Murphy et al. (2021) essentially argue that the practice of archive ethnography is a) changing alongside technological advances that have altered the ways in which field notes can be recorded, stored, managed, and analyzed and b) in need of a broader conversation about the potential for greater transparency in qualitative research. Aside from a capacity for replication or reanalysis that some may desire, shared data and analyses could also contribute to more fruitful collective reflexivity, as community engagement could potentially work to mitigate biases that researchers may carry with them in their work. The authors encourage digital recordings of research participants through audio and video and suggest that participants adjust quickly to the presence of a camera or recorder. They acknowledge that transparency can be concerning for purposes of anonymity but point to the difficulties, and problematic elements, of pursuing/providing anonymity for research participants. Overall, the authors conclude by suggesting that researchers can, at the very least, be transparent about why they have chosen the methods that they are choosing for purposes of anonymity or data protection.
In this chapter, Janneke explores recently developed alternatives to academic publishing as it is presently structured. Some of these alternatives are focused on increasing equitable access and raising questions about the “material nature of books, authorship, copyright, originality, responsibility, and fixity” (159). Janneke approaches these alternatives as part of their strategy of experimenting with and re-imagining the future of the scholarly book. They offer two strategies for intervening in current cultures of knowledge production and re-imagining the book: one focused on the institutions and modes of material production relevant to the book, and the other focused on scholars’ own research, communication, and publishing practices. In offering these strategies, Janneke draws distinctions between neoliberal visions of open access (attached to the notion of innovation) and radical open access (attached to the idea of experimentation).
“Experimenting is very much an affirmative speculative practice, a means to reperform our existing scholarly institutions and practices in potentially more ethical and responsible ways; opening up spaces for otherness and differentiation beyond our hegemonic conceptual knowledge frameworks; and exploring more inclusive forms of knowledge, open to ambivalence and failure" (Janneke, 2021:159).
I will preface this by saying that I struggled with this article because I found it to be abstract - dealing with broad ideas such as accessibility, neoliberalism, critical spaces, intellectual freedom, the intellectual public, trust, vulnerability, governance, and empowerment. It takes me repetition and being in conversation with others about the components in order for me to fully grasp the ideas. With that caveat: the author references their prior discussion of books (or the book-object), the development of the book as a commodity and as “a value-laden object of knowledge exchange within academia.” The article challenges the book as the traditional form of publishing within academia and provides discussion of the potential impact of new mediums. The author proclaims that without increasing openness and alternative methods of publishing, researchers are subject to and play a role in the capitalization of research. Alternatives to the traditional book were initiated through calls for open scholarship and open access, although meanings of “open access” are highly debated. While some connect open access to neoliberalism, the author proposes that radical open access facilitates critiques of those systems while acknowledging that in order for the model to gain more traction negative attitudes and perceptions about the new modality must be addressed. The author also addresses the “communicative power” of open politics using digital technologies and open access and the nuanced differences between “innovation” and “experimentation.”
What is the main argument, narrative, or e/affect?
Ethnography is experiencing growing pains and that the research method and researchers are in a period of reflection while trying to understand how to practice ethnography in a digital world where technological advances are great tools but come with their own limitations and considerations. Ethnographers are undergoing methodological developments as the demand for data sharing and transparency increases, along with the rise of technology (meaning tools to record/store data and the platforms and ability to share it). This development is being done with consideration but like all else, through trial and error. The authors share suggestions on how to best navigate the tensions that have arisen in the field but the suggestions (in my opinion) are meant to mitigate concerns and it is up to the researcher to determine what is most appropriate for the project. The authors propose that transparency is essential.
a second reckoning
The authors discuss four aspects of ethnographic data around which new methodological and ethical questions have been prompted by techno-social advances. Ideally, the authors demand disciplinary standards that are flexible enough to not punish ethnographers whose projects cannot embrace the push for greater transparancy. An emphasis is placed on making analytical decisions, if not data, more transparant. The authors also push the concept of "reanalysis," whether external or internal to the ethnographer, to help address the "problem" or reproducability that occurs generally within the social sciences and particularly within ethnographic projects that by their very nature capture unique moments in the time/space/affect continuum.
Main argument, narrative, or effect
The author explores the concept of the book as a product of academic knowledge and the main mode of scholarly communication. The author explains that academic books are “developed into both a product and value-laden object of knowledge exchange within academia” (p. 2). The author emphasizes the need for alternative models which will increase equitable access to books and will challenge the nature of books as finite material “products of scholarly communications” (p. 3).
Instead of viewing the book as a material object completed at a certain point in time, the author envisions it as an open platform that allows for the ongoing possibility for adding to the content of the book and for continuous openness to criticism. The author makes a distinction between 1) the book as a commodity, a fixed outcome that has contributed to “innovation,” and 2) the book as a platform for “experimentation” and the ongoing creation for knowledge.
What narratives and examples support the main narrative
The author conceptualizes openness as “being open to change and experimentation,” which is a process that allows “continuous critique” (p. 6). The author contrasts this conceptualization of openness with the openness from the perspective of neoliberal discourse, which is based on the view of academic institutions as businesses in which research outcomes are measured in terms of productivity and “impact agenda” that jointly determine funding opportunities. Within such a framework, openness of research will allow efficient and cost-effective access to knowledge, and will support institutional control of the process of research.
The author demonstrates how neoliberal discourse was upheld in the Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings (or “Finch Report,” 2012). The author describes how, in the context of the Finch Report, openness and transparency ultimately worked to preserve the status of research articles as a “commodified unit of exchange” (p. 10) that protected the interests of the publishing market.
In contrast to the Finch Report, the author introduces an idea of radical open access to knowledge that aims to challenge “business ethics underlying innovations in the knowledge economy” (p. 12). The author emphasizes that this approach is dynamic and contextual. The idea is illustrated by presenting three scholarly works: Open Humanities Press (OHP, an open access publishing collective that consists of multiple scholarly communities), Differences & Repetitions wiki (a site for open source writing set up by Ted Stripha), and an open book “Planned Obsolescence” by Kethleen Fitzpatrick (published on a digital platform MediaCommonsPress and made available for open review and comments). One common feature of these projects is that they provide an alternative for market-driven publishing systems and offer a platform for “specialized, advanced, difficult or avant-garde” products (p. 17). In the example of Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s work, the openness to “community-oriented” criticism of her work is an alternative to the conventional peer-review process.
The author emphasizes that inclusiveness of diverse forms of knowledge is essential in cultural studies. To illustrate this point, the author explains the difference between the concept of “experience” (as a source of subjective knowledge) and “experiment” (as objective knowledge generated by means of the scientific method). The distinction between knowledge through experience and experimental knowledge is the conceptual basis of the split between the objective and the subjective, the quantitative and the qualitative. A published book or paper can be viewed as a closed object with a beginning and an end, not unlike the knowledge generated under rigorous experimental conditions. An open-access book, as envisioned by the author, is a dynamic and ever-changing form of knowledge production with infinite possibilities and opportunities for growth.
What questions and types of analysis does this text suggest for your own work?
The idea of inclusiveness of different kinds of knowledge is central to nursing science and midwifery. Clinical practice involves different kinds of knowledge: that based on the scientific method as well as that generated through experience of working with patients in different socio-cultural circumstances, in addition to intuitive knowledge, and other informal or implicit kinds of knowledge. Knowledge other than that based on scientific models is often referred to as “the art of nursing.” The latter is difficult to define, study and share. The reviewed paper has motivated me to think about open access as a way to bring inclusiveness into study of health practices.
Murphy et al. (2021) describe two challenges to ethnography. The first challenge concerns the ubiquitous presence of new technologies, such as smartphones and social media platforms. These technologies have opened new ways of data recording and collection, and they have raised new questions about data protection and privacy. Moreover, since significant social interactions are happening on social media platforms, the platforms are instrumental to understanding many modern social phenomena.
The second challenge concerns the growing demand for qualitative research to uphold their standards of rigor, of the sort that used to be demanded from quantitative methods, i.e., to demonstrate representativeness and replicability of qualitative research and to assure data transparency. Some scholars recognize that meeting this challenge is essential for cross disciplinary collaboration and for the capacity of their research to contribute to the larger body of knowledge. Others are wary that such demands of representativeness and replicability are contrary to the essence of ethnographic methodology, which is interpretive in its nature, and in which the researcher acts as an instrument of inquiry. Additionally, demands of transparency raise concerns about confidentiality of data.
Murphy et al. (2021) argue that, although ethnographic data cannot be replicated, transparency of data and their availability for reanalysis should be viewed as equivalent to standards by which we judge a) rigor of ethnographic research and b) its potential to contribute “to theory building and the accumulation of empirical knowledge about the social world.”
The authors suggest mechanisms and describe barriers to transparency of data in four stages of ethnographic inquiry: 1) recording and collecting the data, 2) anonymizing, 3) data verification, and 4) destroying, preserving and sharing data.
Recording and collecting data
Ethnographers engagement of technologies described by Murphy et al. (2021) adds to traditional “face-to-face interaction” (p.46) is twofold: 1) use of technological devices for data recording and 2) study of “what people do online” (p. 46) through either active involvement or passive observation.
Anonymizing
Mechanism of anonymizing data (aimed to protect participants' privacy) can hinder data transparency and reanalysis. The authors conclude that the level of anonymizing used in a study “will vary given the context of population” (p. 49). The authors emphasize that ethnographers have to be transparent with their participants about the level of anonymity accepted in the study in question.
Data Verification
Qualitative scholars view participant accounts, such as narratives and questionnaires, as windows into the ways participants make meaning of their experiences or the ways people want their experiences to be understood by researchers. Thus, participant accounts cannot be regarded as factual truth. However, as Murphy et al. (2021) explain, requests for verification of participant accounts come from other academic fields, such as journalism and jurisprudence. This criticism motivated the debate about the extent to which verification of data can be used in ethnography. The authors review literature that tackles such ideas as corroboration of accounts from multiple participants, collecting diverse sources of evidence, and “checking stories for consistency” (p. 51). Also, debate is ongoing regarding the need for data verification by third parties or by external reviewers. Here the concern is that fact-checking might conflict with goals of the ethnographic inquiry in those cases where the researcher is trying to capture how reality is constructed by the participants.
The authors conclude that, although there is no clearly defined solution to the concern of verification, ethnographers should be clear and transparent about the way their data was collected and recorded.
Destroying, preserving, and sharing data
New technologies made it possible to store digitized qualitative data in “online repositories” that makes data available for sharing and reanalysis. This option is in contrast to the commonly accepted convention in which field notes are destroyed after some time, to assure participant anonymity and confidentiality. The authors argue that merely destructing field notes is insufficient for protecting confidentiality because data often include other documents and artifacts. Instead, digitizing data opens new possibilities for data protection by such mechanisms as controlled access, confidentiality agreements, and varying the level of access. The authors also discuss the issue of participant consent when data are shared and eventually used for purposes other than participants had agreed to.
What questions and types of analysis does this text suggest for your own work?
One of my interests is models of midwifery care in the US. The paper by Murphy et al. (2021) tackles two problems essential for my research. First is the problem of creating the platform for collaboration between researchers and three groups of participants: midwives, medical doctors and women under midwifery care. I hope to have the data available to participants and researchers for reanalysis. Second, I plan to collect different types of data, including those from digital platforms and also audio and video recordings that capture interactions of women and midwives. This is because I believe that the nature of such interactions is crucial for understanding the principles of midwifery care.
Although all concerns described in this paper are important for my research, I am especially interested in the problem of data verification. Professionally, nursing and midwifery are situated on the casp separating biomedicine and social studies. Nursing and midwifery scholars need to find methods for generating knowledge generalizable across disciplines. Achieving such generalization without sacrificing rigor of quantitative methods or richness of qualitatively captured data is a significant challenge.