Ethnographic Protocols, Read Ethnographically!

A plea against the provision of ethnographic data for secondary analyses, at the same time a method(olog)ical guide and replica

Abstract

The essay argues that ethnographic data are not suitable for reconstructive secondary analyses, although the archiving and use of qualitative data is generally considered beneficial. Ethnographic data represent a special category that is not suitable for such analyses for methodological and ethical reasons. These data cause ethical problems and contribute nothing relevant to ethnographic research practice.

Along a definition of ethnography and the role of the ethnographer in the research process, it is argued that ethnographic data is merely one moment in a long process of hermeneutic understanding. Writing ethnographic protocols is thus a methodological research practice and not a methodological one.

This theoretical argument is illustrated using the example of the “Field Protocol Inclusion” (Call #4 from datumunddiskurs.de). It shows how an ethnographic reading differs from a secondary analytical reconstruction and how it can professionalize the ethnographic research process. The article also serves as a method(olo)gical guide and is a replica of Reh et al. (2022).