Knowledge organisation by means of concept process mapping Knowledge organisation by means of concept-process mapping

11.3My response to David Weir’s challenge

“What happens within the observer must be made known, Devereux insisted, if the nature of what has been observed is to be understood” (Behar, 1997).

We can summarise (1) Sara Delamont’s arguments (Delamont, 2007) against auto-ethnography, which she views as pernicious and lazy and (2) the extent to which the use of Conceprocity and the overall research design might help as in Table which follows:

Table How the current research design addresses Delamont’s objections to auto-ethnography. Source: author

Objection to auto-ethnography	Response
Auto-Ethnography cannot fight familiarity – it is hard to fight familiarity in our own society anyway even when we have data.	We prefer the use of the phrase “structured self-observation” (Rodriguez and Ryave, 2002) to auto-ethnography. We do this to emphasise the fact that we are not here talking about self-revelatory writing as associated with the work particularly of Carolyn Ellis or illustrated by that of Ruth Behar. In addition, the results of this structured self-observation are in no way regarded as true in an ontological sense. Instead, they are intended as a particular exemplar. Any very tentative findings or suggestions of ways forward find their way into the working documents (nuggets) associated with this research. Those working documents are intended to be refined in action research in which the experience of a number of research volunteers are individually expressed and then, perhaps, to a certain degree synthesised. Conceprocity gives shape and a degree of objectivity to these individual and collective expressions.
Auto - Ethnography is almost impossible to write and publish ethically.
Research is supposed to be analytic not merely experiential. Autoethnography is all experience, and is noticeably lacking in analytic outcome.	The construction of a Conceprocity model is a significant mental exercise which is inherently and intensely analytical. Although this does not in and of itself prevent an experiential and self-centred approach, it makes it less likely. Subsequently the model can be refined in discussion between an individual and a peer or mentor, and the outcome is at the very least a surfaced and carefully-expressed model.
It focuses on the wrong side of the power divide.	Concerning autoethnography or structured self-observation in personal information management, I genuinely doubt that any power-divide issues arise, particularly as there is often only one actor involved in a modelling exercise. In connection with action research, there is indeed a very serious danger associated with the unbalanced power relationship between research volunteer and research mentor and the prejudices of the latter. However, the research design emphasises and seeks to promote the establishment of a forum-based community of practice in which the voice of the research mentor will be but one of many.
It abrogates our duty to go out and collect data: we are not paid generous salaries to sit in our offices obsessing about ourselves. Sociology is an empirical discipline and we are supposed to study the social.	In this research design, structured self-observation is but one of a number of complementary data-collection techniques. The others are textual analysis of the existing corpus of literature concerning personal information management systems, and explicitly-authorised analysis of the writings of research volunteers. We make absolutely no pretence to statistical validity. Instead we are particularly concerned in this research to look at certain outliers - see (Boisot and McKelvey, 2010). These outliers are experts in personal information management systems who may even have a vanguard role to play in the establishment of this small field of academic enquiry.
Finally and most importantly ‘we’ are not interesting enough to write about in journals, to teach about, to expect attention from others. We are not interesting enough to be the subject matter.	Certainly. There is no danger that anyone’s individual experience will find its way into published work.