hey Frances, the thing that’s got me thinking a lot is: does openness stand in the way of inclusion? Which “value” is more important? I know that it is rare (if not impossible) for research to include all participants, but what if research excludes a large chunk of participants because of its approach? Like doing research in English in a community where 30% of people do not speak the language. Or doing research online when half the people you want to reach don’t have internet connections? Or in this case, doing research that is supposed to represent the voices of the people within a community, but doing it in a way that some members of the community are uncomfortable with? It’s one thing to state explicitly that the autoethnog does not include very voice in rhizo14 and that’s normal and acceptable. But it’s another thing if it’s a large group of people who were a big part of the experience but were not happy to engage because of the format of the research. Does that make sense at all? Am I being too sensitive or too imposing by thinking this? I think I wrote elsewhere I’m concerned about inclusion first, but secondarily also concerned about the value of the resesrch itself