This paper questions the `afterlife´ of educational ethnographic doctoral monographs and the results of the empirical analyzes presented in these. The authors have been engaged in long term ethnographic fieldwork in profession-oriented educational contexts (nurse-, medical- and veterinary education) as part of their individual doctoral work (Noer, 2016, Nielsen, 2018, Kramer, 2018, Lyngsø, 2019). The analyzes, findings and results of the ethnographic research have been written up-, presented- and assessed as monographs written in Danish, the native language of both research contexts and authors.

The projects have been presented at international conferences, where both methodological-, theoretical- and empirical analytical aspects have been discussed with educational ethnographic research colleagues. These discussions have extended horizons of the authors and greatly contributed with new perspectives. Furthermore, projects have been presented and results made subject to discussions in both the educational organizational settings, where research was conducted, and in broader contexts amongst professionals in the healthcare sector. As such, an anchoring in -, a proximity to - and a continuous reflective dialogue with both educational ethnographic research communities and the original fields of practice has been established and maintained.

Undoubtedly, writing is an essential part of ethnography and extensive discussions on questions of representation and the processes of transformation of experience into fieldnotes and of fieldnotes to ‘ethnographic end products’ have been and continues to be pursued rigorously in literature (e.g. Van Maanen, 1988; Atkinson, 2015; Jeffrey & Russel, 2018). However, the monograph as a preferred format remains prioritized and is continuously regarded in line with ethnographic traditions of representation, orientation towards practice and empirical richness (Atkinson, 2015, Borgnakke, 2003, 2011, Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). Currently, the empirically rich and practice-oriented monograph is a characteristic point to be highlighted in discussions about possibilities for development of qualitative cross-case analyzes and meta-ethnographic approaches (Kakos & Fritzsche, 2018). Following discussions and argumentation of past and present, the `native´ monograph has, by authors, been considered the obvious choice when seeking to `capture´ the complexity of both the researched fields and the ethnographic research processes.

Nevertheless, the choice of the monograph, as an informed and conscious genre choice, has brought about new questions related to both the status of educational ethnographic monographs and to researchers and their future role in the educational processes and practices. When the curtain falls – when the PhD period has come to an end - when the `text´ has been both presented and defended and the PhD degree obtained – Who are the readers of the monographs? Who is the main audience for the educational ethnographic monographs? What are authors incentives to write - and what are readers incentives to read the monographs? How are the monographs perceived (used or not used) in research communities, at the educational policy level and at the educational practical level? How are questions to the research and the results of the monographs formulated from the fields of educational and professional practices? How do we – and do we, as ethnographic educational researchers, contribute to the educational debate – in which fields – and on what levels?  

In a time where research is increasingly communicated in shorter (English) scientific articles especially within the original fields of practice of the authors (healthcare and medical education), where still more educational ethnographic inspired research is formulated and conducted by the original fields of practice themselves and where strong demands to demonstrate the impact of research dominates both the institutional mesolevels and the political macrolevel, the above questions are put forward with genuine curiosity and concern and sought discussed, illuminated and put into perspective using empirical examples from the period after the curtain fell to the authors.

Authors share a common background conducting ethnographic research in profession-oriented educational settings (health-care sector, medical education, nurse education and veterinary education). The studies have focused on following processes of development and implementation of educational innovative alternatives; net-based nurse education (Lyngsø, 2019), game-based veterinary learning (Nielsen, 2018), interdisciplinary education in the health care sector (Kramer, 2018) and an alternative educational nurse program (Noer, 2016). As such, the individual doctoral research projects of the authors are based on a common methodological background with references to both anthropologic -, ethnographic- and pedagogic empirical traditions; Hastrup (2010), Hammersley & Atkinson (2007), Atkinson (2015), Walford (2008), Borgnakke (1996, 2011, 2013). Hence, the monographs are based on long term fieldwork following participants (students and teachers) – as they were alternating between different learning contexts (classrooms, clinical workplaces, student homes and on-line study activities) in real educational time and rhythm. Employing a wide spectrum of both classical traditional ethnographic methods (observation, spontaneous conversation and interviews) and newer ethnographic methods (video, video-diaries and on-line observations), each project has generated a diverse and large empirical collection. In theoretical terms, the projects draw on a range of different concepts and theories (a.o. Lave & Wenger, 1991; Bernstein, 2000, Benner, 2010; Martinsen, 2006; Agyris & Schön, 1996, Borgnakke, 2008). Drawing on examples from the authors´ different (communication) strategies post publication of the monographs, the paper reflects on different forms of dissemination and communication modes herein the potentials, challenges, dilemmas and prospects related to the (native) doctoral monograph as first choice of genre. Further, the paper carries out analyses in which selected and exemplary issues from the dissertations (monographs) are examined for potentials for cross-case analyzes, meta-ethnographic analyzes, as well as for potentials for further collaboration with the fields of practice.

The overall aim of the paper is to raise and contribute to a renewed discussion on the strengths, potentials, challenges and the embedded dilemmas of doctoral monographs and their afterlife. Ethnography has over time witnessed an overwhelming proliferation of genres, in terms of multiple methods as well as multiple modes of dissemination and communication of research. In both historical and contemporary perspectives, the doctoral monograph continues to hold a well-argued status as a first-choice format. However, regardless of the undisputable strengths, benefits, potentials and prospects, the genre also presents challenges to doctoral researchers. Though this is definitely neither a new problem nor a new discussion within ethnographic research communities, researchers are presently under increased pressure with demands from both institutions and funding organizations to communicate and disseminate research using new modes and channels, reaching out to a wider range of audiences and stakeholders. This tendency is argued to have even more far-reaching consequences for the future generation of ethnographic educational researchers. Hence, the authors call for a renewed discussion aimed not only to further strengthen the native doctoral monograph in challenging times but also to recognize, encompass and handle the multiple modes of communication and dissemination needed in the next era of educational ethnography.

Atkinson, P. (2015). For Ethnography. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Agyris, C., Schön, D.A. (1996). Organizational learning II: theory, method, and practice. Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley. Benner, P., Sutphen, M., Leonard, V., & Day, L. (2010). Educating nurses: a call for radical transformation (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity – theory, research, critique. (Revised ed.). Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Borgnakke, K. (1996). Pædagogisk feltforskning og procesanalytisk kortlægning - en forskningsberetning (Vol.1). Procesanalytisk metodologi (Vol. 2). København: Thesis & Akademisk Forlag A/S. Borgnakke, K. (2003). Kommentar til 'Time and tradition: resolving tensions in the organisation of doctoral training in Sweden' af David Hamilton. Nordisk Pedagogik, 23(3), 142-144. Borgnakke, K. (2008). Evalueringens spændingsfelter. Århus: Klim. Borgnakke, K. (2011). Et universitet er et sted, der forsker i alt – undtagen i sig selv og sin egen virksomhed: Rapport om den forskningsfaglige baggrund for udvikling af universitetspædagogisk forskning. Kbh.: Institut for Medier, Erkendelse og Formidling, Københavns Universitet. Borgnakke, K. (2013). Etnografiske metoder i uddannelsesforskningen : mellem klassiske traditioner og senmoderne udfordringer. Kbh.: Institut for Medier, Erkendelse og Formidling, Københavns Universitet. Hammersley, M., Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography : principles in practice (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Hastrup, K. (Ed.). (2010). Ind i verden: en grundbog i antropologisk metode (2nd ed.). Kbh.: Hans Reitzel. Jeffrey, I. B. & Russell, L. (Ed.). (2018). Ethnographic Writing. Stroud, Gloucestershire: E & E Publishing. Kakos M, Fritzsche, B. (Ed.). (2018). Meta-Ethnographic Synthesis in Education: Challenges, Aims and Possibilities. Routledge. Kramer, T. (2018). Etnografiske studier i (inter)professionel vejledingspraksis. Kbh.: Institut for Medier, Erkendelse og Formidling, Det Humanistiske Fakultet, Københavns Universitet. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning - Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyngsø, A. (2019). Etnografisk forløbsstudie i netbaseret sygeplejerskeuddannelse – mellem skolen, hjemmet og klinikken. Kbh.: Institut for Medier, Erkendelse og Formidling, Det Humanistiske Fakultet, Københavns Universitet (not published – currently under assessment). Martinsen, K. (2006). Care and vulnerability (1st ed.). Oslo: Akribe. Nielsen, C. K. (2018). Dyrlæge på spil…: Uddannelsesetnografiske studier i professionsorienteret spilbaseret læring på den danske dyrlægeuddannelse. Grafisk - København Universitet. Noer, V.R. (2016). Rigtige sygeplejersker – Uddannelsesetnografiske studier af sygeplejestuderendes studieliv og dannelsesprocesser. Kbh.: Institut for Medier, Erkendelse og Formidling, Det Humanistiske Fakultet, Københavns Universitet. Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Walford, G. (Ed.). (2008). How to do educational ethnography. London: Tufnell Press.