Bezuidenhout et al. are largely analyzing why Kenyan and South Africans are not able to / don’t use Open Access and Open Data resources more. However, they are not able to study usage (because it isn’t being used). My project differs in this regard because I am interested in the sociality of the sharing and the questions that arise when we begin to share. Because of my methodology (building organizational archives for the various organizations and using those as probes for discussions), I hope to be able to move beyond what is not (narratives of lack of / deficit) to discussions that take as a starting point that it is possible. I think such an analysis will be able to avoid a well-worn narrative of deficit that is often common in studies of Africa.
Biruk conducted her own research interviews with projects’ survey respondents (“research on research” as the fieldworkers called it). (page 126). How did she avoid replicating the same violence of research fatigue that she mentions throughout the book? This was one of my own main concerns and part of the reason I am not going to be focused on researching those who are already so heavily researched as part of my research design. I already know the phenomenon of “over-research” exists and a book like Biruk’s is now here to point to. I don’t need to do this work again. Now I am more interested in diving deep into the knowledge sharing infrastructure. I am taking a much more interventionist approach to my methodology by actually building or piloting an alternative (that is currently not in existence).