Building, (Re)Entering, and (Re)Formulating Archival Records

• In Event: The Problem of Context(s) When (Re)constructing Data Sets From Archived Records

Abstract

Objectives or purposes
This paper examines the construction of an ethnographic archive and explores issues of (re)entry and (re)formulating data for purposes of sharing aspects of the archive with other researchers for selected projects. By examining the initial study and three collaborative projects, I identify principles of operation in constructing data sets with others from the original archive and issues of transparency visible through contrastive analysis across studies.

Perspective(s) or theoretical framework
An Interactional Ethnographic epistemology formed the basis for the original study (Author, 2001), a two-year ethnography in a high school Studio Art class. The original inquiry focused on the role of the teacher’s discourse in students’ learning of local, disciplinary practices that contributed to engaging as studio artists. A sociocultural framework (Authors, 2008) oriented how classrooms were viewed as cultures where individuals learn discursive practices that lead them to participate as part of the collective. This perspective guided analysis of how the teacher initiated discourse(s) and actions led to what access students had for learning to be studio artists, and what the consequences of those actions were over time.


Methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry
Part of ethnographic research is leaving aside ethnocentrism. By conducting contrastive analysis of four studies, I describe principles of operation across studies and explore ethical and substantive issues of the research.

Data sources, evidence, objects, or materials
The original archive includes records from the observed high school studio art class, including audio and video, fieldnotes, and other classroom and student artifacts. Other data include the (re)formulation of data from the original study for three subsequent studies that further examined classroom interactions (Authors, 2007), methodological issues of using video, and principles of Interactional Ethnography (Authors, 2012).

Results and/or substantiated conclusions or warrants for arguments/point of view
Through contrastive analysis, descriptions of principles of operation are presented with questions raised from each study. The questions are driven by the goal of setting aside ethnocentrism as a researcher, a process that involves recognizing how observations are influenced by contextual factors and, therefore, taking those into account when making claims. Findings from analyses across studies frame the need to address the following questions in sharing archived records for future study in this and related archives: What is the purpose and goal of the inquiry? What is the theoretical frame? What assumptions underlie the frame? To whom is the project addressed? What records were selected from the archive? How were data (re)formulated? At what level of scale? These questions frame issues in constructing future studies within an archive.

Scientific or scholarly significance of the study or work
The paper provides principles of operation for (re)entering the archive, engaging in cross-case analysis studies, and sharing archival records for multiple purposes. The study adds previously unexamined issues of transparency in research and challenges claims that archives can be publicly shared when video records are critical to an archive.

Author

• W. Douglas Baker, Eastern Michigan University