Sparking Change: Frictions as a Key Function of Ethnography for Healthcare Improvement

Line Number

Suggestion for correction

55

and politically-classed understandings is are a perspective and an approach

60

core assumptions embedded in western healthcare and bio medical bio-medicalpractices

87

and decision-making” which make makes it “impossible to

104

at the University of Leicester, UK, held its first an annual Ethnography for

112

is not replicable or easily transferable, and may seem too small-scale, not

114

These included, broadly, the different purposes, subject subjects, methods, logics

135

not only other research methodologists, but also clinical and non-clinical practitioners

144

When one of the authors (who whom we here choose to call Anna) began a research collaboration

171

medical information pertaining to them,

179

Fainzang, however, had different questions and research

201

exacerbate well-known social inequality in healthcare access through social inequality

203

them a new direction, Fainzang’s work allowed to generate for the generation of different

274

Her work included shadowing of healthcare leaders and frontline

291

In both Prainsack et al. and in this author’s example case

342

As a result, for some partners, the desire for the incorporation of ethnographic work

346

actually conducting high-quality ethnographic work.

371

However, at the first meeting, the idea to revision revise the purpose of

375

the decision at this meeting to not not to continue to collaborate on this research study

376

project while still signaling signalling a willingness to work together on future related ideas.

405

forms of reasoning, or ‘heterologoi’, are unavoidable

To put the Greek word in italics!

422

as Shand et al. (2021) did by training key clinical stakeholder’s ‘learning coordinators’ how not to just oversee staff learning but directly learn

437

generating more insights into the broader context (Bieler et al., 2021)

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below. Corresponding revisions are in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: “In anthropology, the research is fine. However, if it were the other humanities, the author was supposed to clarify the methodology or theoretical framework of his article in the abstract or in the introduction. The additional information, depending on the methodology or theoretical framework, would have made the article more scientific. Furthermore, can “storytelling” escape the demands of “ethical clearance” in fieldwork research?

Response 1: Thank you for this insightful comment. Ethical clearance was not required for this article, as it reflects on our experiences across multiple collaborations in healthcare ethnography rather than presenting new empirical data. Nevertheless, this observation prompted us to add a sentence in the article highlighting how the use of storytelling further complicates ethical considerations around informed consent (see lines 299–302 and the final reference list).

Comment 2: “It is good to ensure that the quotations and the bibliography (references) are according to the MDPI style.”

Response 2: Thank you for highlighting this point. We reviewed both the quotations and the bibliography against the MDPI guidelines, as well as by comparing with recently published articles in the journal and found that no changes were necessary.

Comment 3: “There are very few minor corrections!”

Response 3: We are grateful for this meticulous reading and suggestions. All proposed corrections have been incorporated into the text, except in the following cases where the original wording is correct:

•      Line 55: The verb is (not are) correctly refers to problematizing.

•      Line 86 (was 87): The verb make (not makes) correctly refers to struggles.

•      Line 381 (was 376): The spelling signaling (rather than signalling) is consistent with our use of American English throughout the manuscript.

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below. Corresponding revisions are in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments: “The article is interesting and innovative. However, ethnography is not very popular method of research in healthcare. Therefore, since few articles have been published, it is challenging to compare this study with others. In any case, it seems that it fulfills its aim of presenting friction. Clear and concise, presenting new paths for gaining knowledge.”

Response: Thank you for the encouraging feedback. While this was not a requested change, we recognize the value of your observation. We have integrated an additional reference to the substantial body of literature on the use of ethnography in healthcare, to help readers less familiar with this tradition to situate our work (see line 51 and the final reference list).

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below. Corresponding revisions are in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments: “I have little to add to an article that, as it stands, is already well-polished and refined. It deals with an important topic, and it does so by offering individual cases. These are useful not just because they support the core argument, but also in themselves, as testimonies of epistemological attrition spilling over into the ethical realm.

If anything, I would just recommend the Authors to clarify the roles of Deegan and Scott-Jones in their statements (lines 44-47) and to deepen the notion of "heterologoi" by Rabinow (Line 405). I am well aware of Rabinow's contribution, but a couple of lines more could do a good service to the reader. Finally, please check capitalization in line 36.

Aside from that, I believe this contribution passes my review checks very smoothly and, as an expert I am quite eager to see it come out as soon as possible and contribute to the overall

discussion on the inclusion of ethnographers in other fields -- which is always somehow

"problematic" or "problematicized" by some agents.”

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have clarified the roles of Deegan (2001) and Scott-Jones (2010) in the text. Specifically, Deegan is cited for the adoption of ethnography beyond anthropology for the study western societies, while Scott-Jones is cited for emphasizing the commitment to challenging ethnocentrism and social normativity, and problematizing Westernized and politically-classed understandings of practice (lines 44–47).

We have also briefly expanded on what Rabinow refers to with the term “heterologoi” (lines 410-412) and corrected capitalization in the opening quotation (line 36).