1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Sociology
  4. Volume 47, 2021
  5. Article

Annual Review of Sociology

Volume 47, 2021

Ethnography, Data Transparency, and the Information Age

Abstract

The conventions ethnographers follow to gather, write about, and store their data are increasingly out of sync with contemporary research expectations and social life. Despite technological advancements that allow ethnographers to observe their subjects digitally and record interactions, few follow subjects online and many still reconstruct quotes from memory. Amid calls for data transparency, ethnographers continue to conceal subjects’ identities and keep fieldnotes private. But things are changing. We review debates, dilemmas, and innovations in ethnography that have arisen over the past two decades in response to new technologies and calls for transparency. We focus on emerging conversations around how ethnographers record, collect, anonymize, verify, and share data. Considering the replication crisis in the social sciences, we ask how ethnographers can enable others to reanalyze their findings. We address ethical implications and offer suggestions for how ethnographers can develop standards for transparency that are consistent with their commitment to their subjects and interpretive scholarship.

Keyword(s): data sharing, ethnography, methodology, reanalysis, replication, technology, transparency
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-090320-124805
2021-07-31
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/47/1/annurev-soc-090320-124805.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-090320-124805&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abramson CM, Dohan D. 2015. Beyond text: using arrays to represent and analyze ethnographic data. Sociol. Methodol. 45:1272–319
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Abramson CM, Joslyn J, Rendle KA, Garrett S, Dohan D. 2018. The promises of computational ethnography. Ethnography 19:2254–84
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Abu-Lughod L. 2008. Writing Women's Worlds: Bedouin Stories Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  4. Am. Anthropol. Assoc 2004. Statement on Ethnography and Institutional Review Boards Arlington, VA: Am. Anthropol. Assoc http://research.fiu.edu/documents/irb/documents/ethnographyReview.pdf
  5. Am. Sociol. Assoc 2018. Code of Ethics Washington, DC: Am. Sociol. Assoc https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/asa_code_of_ethics-june2018a.pdf
  6. Anderson E 1978. A Place on the Corner Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  7. Anspach RR, Mizrachi N. 2006. The field worker's fields: ethics, ethnography, and medical sociology. Soc. Health Illn. 28:6713–31
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Armstrong E, Hamilton L 2015. Paying for the Party Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  9. Autry R. 2020. Sociology's race problem. Aeon Novemb. 26. https://aeon.co/essays/urban-ethnographers-do-harm-in-speaking-for-black-communities
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Becker H. 1967. Whose side are we on?. Soc. Probl. 14:3239–47
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Benjamin DJ, Berger JO, Johannesson M, Nosek BA, Wagenmakers E-J et al. 2018. Redefine statistical significance. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2:6–10
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Benzecry C. 2011. The Opera Fanatic: Ethnography of an Obsession Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  13. Besbris M. 2020. Upsold: Real Estate Agents, Prices, and Neighborhood Inequality Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  14. Bishop L. 2005. Protecting respondents and enabling data sharing: reply to Parry and Mauthner. Sociology 39:2333–36
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bishop L. 2009. Ethical sharing and reuse of qualitative data. Aust. J. Soc. Issues 44:3255–72
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Boelen WAM. 1992. Street corner society: Cornerville revisited. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 21:111–51
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Bosk CL. 2008. What Would You Do? Juggling Bioethics and Ethnography Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  18. Bosk CL, De Vries RG. 2004. Bureaucracies of mass deception: institutional review boards and the ethics of ethnographic research. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 595:1249–63
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Bourgois P. 1996.. In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  20. Bourgois P. 2009. Righteous Dopefiend Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  21. Brayne S. 2014. Surveillance and system avoidance: criminal justice contact and institutional attachment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 79:3367–91
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Brayne S. 2020. Predict and Surveil New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  23. Broughton C. 2015. Boom, Bust, Exodus New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  24. Browning C, Wallace D, Feinberg S, Cagney K. 2006. Neighborhood social processes, physical conditions, and disaster-related mortality: the case of the 1995 Chicago heat wave. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:661–78
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Budd J. 2016. Sociology professor's ethics under scrutiny. Columbia Spectator Novemb. 15. https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2012/12/03/sociology-professors-ethics-under-scrutiny/
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Burawoy M. 2003. Revisits: an outline of a theory of reflexive ethnography. Am. Sociol. Rev. 68:5645–79
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Burawoy M. 2019. Empiricism and its fallacies. Contexts 18:147–53
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Cahill SE, Distler W, Lachowetz C, Meaney A, Tarallo R, Willard T. 1985. Meanwhile backstage: public bathrooms and the interaction order. Urban Life 14:133–58
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Calarco JM. 2018. Negotiating Opportunities: How the Middle Class Secures Advantages in School New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  30. Carusi A, Jirotka M. 2009. From data archive to ethical labyrinth. Qual. Res. 9:3285–98
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Cent. Qual. Multi-Method Inq 2020. Sharing data @ Qualitative Data Repository (QDR) Inf. Sheet, Cent. Qual. Multi-Method Inq., Syracuse Univ. Syracuse, NY: https://qdr.syr.edu/drupal_data/public/Sharing_Data_at_QDR.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Chauvette A, Schick-Makaroff K, Molzahn AE. 2019. Open data in qualitative research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 18:1–6
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Clerge O. 2019. The New Noir: Race, Identity, Diaspora in Black Suburbia Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  34. Clifford J, Marcus GE. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography: A School of American Research Advanced Seminar Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  35. Cohen P. 2015. On the ropes (Goffman review). Family Inequality Blog May 28. https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/on-the-ropes-goffman-review/
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Contreras R. 2019. Transparency and unmasking issues in ethnographic crime research: methodological considerations. Sociol. Forum 34:2293–312
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Crosas M, Gautier J, Karcher S, Kirilova D, Otalora G, Schwartz A. 2018. Data policies of highly-ranked social science journals. SocArXiv, March 30. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/9h7ay
    [Crossref]
  38. Desmond M. 2009. On the Fireline: Living and Dying with Wildland Firefighters Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  39. Desmond M. 2017. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City New York: Crown
  40. Duneier M. 1999. Sidewalk New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux
  41. Duneier M. 2006. Ethnography, the ecological fallacy, and the 1995 Chicago heat wave. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:4679–88
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Duneier M. 2007. On the legacy of Elliott Liebow and Carol Stack. Focus 25:133–38
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Duneier M. 2011. How not to lie with ethnography. Soc. Methods 41:11–11
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Edin K, Schaefer HL. 2015. $2 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
  45. Elbow S. 2015. Updated: UW sociology prof responds to critic who accused her of ‘major felony’ during research. Capital Times June 3. https://madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/updated-uw-sociology-prof-responds-to-critic-who-accused-her-of-major-felony-during-research/article_45d5b0eb-ea57-5de4-89b1-848a3bc7daae.html
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL. 2011. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. , 2nd ed..
  47. Emmelhainz C. 2015. Ethnographic field data 3: preserving and sharing ethnographic data. Savage Minds Blog Aug. 28. https://savageminds.org/2015/08/28/ethnographic-field-data-3-preserving-and-sharing-ethnographic-data/
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Fine GA, Abramson CM. 2020. Ethnography in the time of COVID-19: vectors and the vulnerable. Etnogr. Ric. Qual. 2:165–74
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Fine GA, Cohen P, Jerolmack C, Khan S, Lubet S, Pattillo M. 2018. Panel discussion: Author meets critic. Northwest. . J. Law Soc. Policy 13:3107–37 https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1168&context=njlsp
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Forman J Jr. 2014. The society of fugitives. The Atlantic Oct. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/the-society-of-fugitives/379328/
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Freese J. 2007. Replication standards for quantitative social science: Why not sociology?. Sociol. Methods Res. 36:2153–72
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Freese J, Peterson D. 2017. Replication in social science. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 43:147–65
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Gans HJ. 1965. The Levittowners: Ways of Life and Politics in a New Suburban Community New York: Columbia Univ. Press
  54. Goffman A. 2009. On the run: wanted men in a Philadelphia ghetto. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74:3339–57
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Goffman A. 2014. On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  56. Grasmuck S. 2005. Protecting Home: Class, Race, and Masculinity in Boys’ Baseball New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
  57. Guenther KM. 2009. The politics of names: rethinking the methodological and ethical significance of naming people, organizations, and places. Qual. Res. 9:4411–21
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Hammersley M. 1997. Qualitative data archiving. Sociology 31:1131–42
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Hanson R, Richards P. 2019. Harassed: Gender, Bodies, and Ethnographic Research Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  60. Herndon J, O'Reilly R 2016. Data sharing policies in social sciences academic journals. Databrarianship L Kellam, K Thompson 219–43 Chicago: Am. Libr. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Hidalgo A, Khan S. 2020. Blindsight ethnography and exceptional moments. Etnog. Ric. Qual. 2:185–93
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Ho K. 2009. Liquidated: An Ethnography of Wall Street Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  63. Hoang KK. 2015. Dealing in Desire: Asian Ascendancy, Western Decline, and the Hidden Currencies of Global Sex Work Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  64. Jack A. 2019. The Privileged Poor Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  65. Jerolmack C. 2013. The Global Pigeon Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  66. Jerolmack C. 2021. Up to Heaven and Down to Hell: Freedom, Fracking, and Community in an American Town Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  67. Jerolmack C, Khan S. 2014. Talk is cheap: ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy. Sociol. Methods Res. 43:2178–209
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Jerolmack C, Murphy AK. 2019. 2017. The ethical dilemmas and social scientific trade-offs of masking in ethnography. Sociol. Methods Res. 48:4801–27
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Jerolmack C, Walker E. 2018. Please in my backyard: quiet mobilization in support of fracking in an Appalachian community. Am. J. Sociol. 124:2479–516
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Jones N, Raymond G. 2012. The camera rolls: using third-party video in field research. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 642:1109–23
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Kaiser K. 2009. Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qual. Health Res. 19:111632–41
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Kaminer A. 2012. Columbia's gang scholar lives on the edge. New York Times Novemb 30: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/nyregion/sudhir-venkatesh-columbias-gang-scholar-lives-on-the-edge.html
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Katz J. 2001. How Emotions Work Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  74. Katz J. 2019. Armor for ethnographers. Sociol. Forum 34:1264–75
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Khan S. 2011. Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul's School Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  76. Khan S. 2019. The subpoena of ethnographic data. Sociol. Forum 34:1253–63
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Kulz C. 2017. Factories for Learning: Making Race, Class and Inequality in the Neoliberal Academy Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press
  78. Lacy KR. 2007. Blue-Chip Black: Race, Class, and Status in the New Black Middle Class Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  79. Lane J. 2018. The Digital Street Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  80. Lareau A. 2011. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. , 2nd ed..
  81. Lee J. 2016. Blowin’ Up: Rap Dreams in South Central Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  82. Lee RM. 2004. Recording technologies and the interview in sociology, 1920–2000. Sociology 38:5869–89
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Levine J. 2021. Constructing Community Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  84. Lewis-Kraus G. 2016. The trials of Alice Goffman. New York Times Jan. 12. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/magazine/the-trials-of-alice-goffman.html
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Liebow E. 1967. Tally's Corner: A Study of Negro Streetcorner Men Boston: Little, Brown
  86. Livne R. 2019. Values at the End of Life: The Logic of Palliative Care Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  87. Lubet S. 2018. Interrogating Ethnography: Why Evidence Matters New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  88. Marwell NP. 2007. Bargaining for Brooklyn: Community Organizations in the Entrepreneurial City Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  89. Mascia-Lees FE, Sharpe P, Cohen CB. 1989. The postmodernist turn in anthropology: cautions from a feminist perspective. Signs J. Women Cult. Soc. 15:17–33
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Meadow T. 2018. Trans Kids: Being Gendered in the Twenty-First Century Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  91. Milofsky C. 2008. Smallville: Institutionalizing Community in Twenty-First-Century America Lebanon, NH: Univ. Press N. Engl.
  92. Mojola SA. 2014. Love, Money, and HIV: Becoming a Modern African Woman in the Age of AIDS Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  93. Moravcsik A. 2010. Active citation: a precondition for replicable qualitative research. PS 43:29–35
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Moravcsik A. 2014. Transparency: the revolution in qualitative research. PS 47:48–53
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Mose Brown T, de Casanova EM 2014. Representing the language of the ‘other’: African American Vernacular English in ethnography. Ethnography 15:2208–31
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Mukungu K. 2017. How can you write about a person who does not exist? Rethinking pseudonymity and informed consent in life history research. Soc. Sci. 6:386
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Murphy AK, Jerolmack C. 2016. Ethnographic masking in an era of data transparency. Contexts 15:214–17
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Murthy D. 2008. Digital ethnography: an examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology 42:5837–55
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med 2018. Open science by design: realizing a vision for 21st century research Consens. Study Rep Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med Washington, DC:
  100. Nespor J. 2000. Anonymity and place in qualitative inquiry. Qual. Inq. 6:4546–69
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD et al. 2015. Promoting an open research culture. Science 348:62421422–25
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Pacewicz J. 2016. Partisans and Partners: The Politics of the Post-Keynesian Society Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  103. Parry M. 2015. Conflict over sociologist's narrative puts spotlight on ethnography. Chronicle of Higher Education June 12. https://www.chronicle.com/article/conflict-over-sociologists-narrative-puts-spotlight-on-ethnography/
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Parry O, Mauthner NS. 2004. Whose data are they anyway? Practical, legal and ethical issues in archiving qualitative research data. Sociology 38:1139–52
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Pattillo M. 2013. Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril Among the Black Middle Class Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. , 2nd ed..
  106. Pool R. 2017. The verification of ethnographic data. Ethnography 18:3281–86
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Ralph L. 2014. Renegade Dreams: Living Through Injury in Gangland Chicago Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  108. Reich JA. 2015. Old methods and new technologies: social media and shifts in power in qualitative research. Ethnography 16:4394–415
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Reyes V. 2018. Three models of transparency in ethnographic research: naming places, naming people, and sharing data. Ethnography 19:2204–26
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Reyes V. 2019. Global Borderlands: Fantasy, Violence, and Empire in Subic Bay, Philippines Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  111. Rhoads RA. 2020.. “ Whales tales” on the run: anonymizing ethnographic data in an age of openness. Cult. Stud. Crit. Methodol. 20:5402–13
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Rios V. 2011. Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys New York: NYU Press
  113. Sanchez-Jankowski M. 2016. Cracks in the Pavement Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  114. Saunders EN. 2014. Transparency without tears: a pragmatic approach to transparent security studies research. Secur. Stud. 23:4689–98
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Schacter D. 1999. The seven sins of memory. Am. Psychol. 54:3182–203
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Scheper-Hughes N. 2000. Ire in Ireland. Ethnography 1:1117–40
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Seim J. 2020. Bandage, Sort, and Hustle: Ambulance Crews on the Front Lines of Urban Suffering Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  118. Sharkey P. 2015. Review of On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City, by Alice Goffman. Soc. Serv. Rev. 89:2407–46
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Sharpe C. 2014. Black life, annotated. New Inquiry Aug. 8. https://thenewinquiry.com/black-life-annotated/
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Shedd C. 2015. Unequal City New York: Russell Sage Found.
  121. Sherman J. 2009. Those Who Work, Those Who Don't: Poverty, Morality, and Family in Rural America Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
  122. Shklovski I, Vertesi J. 2013.. “ Un-Googling” publications: the ethics and problems of anonymization. CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems2169–78 New York: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Singal J. 2015. The internet accused Alice Goffman of faking details in her study of a black neighborhood. I went to Philadelphia to check. The Cut June 18. https://www.thecut.com/2015/06/i-fact-checked-alice-goffman-with-her-subjects.html
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Small ML. 2009a. How many cases do I need?. Ethnography 10:15–38
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Small ML. 2009b. Unanticipated Gains: Origins of Network Inequality in Everyday Life New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  126. Small ML. 2015. De-exoticizing ghetto poverty: on the ethics of representation in urban ethnography. City Community 14:4352–58
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Small ML. 2019. Someone to Talk To New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  128. Small ML, Manduca RA, Johnston WR. 2018. Ethnography, neighborhood effects, and the rising heterogeneity of poor neighborhoods across cities. City Community 17:3565–89
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Stack C. 1974. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community New York: Basic
  130. Stein A. 2010. Sex, truths, and audiotape: anonymity and the ethics of exposure in public ethnography. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 39:5554–68
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Stuart F. 2020. Ballad of the Bullet: Gangs, Drill Music, and the Power of Online Infamy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  132. Tavory I. 2016. Summoned: Identification and Religious Life in a Jewish Neighborhood Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  133. Tilley L, Woodthorpe K. 2011. Is it the end for anonymity as we know it?. Qual. Res. 11:2197–212
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Timmermans S. 2019. Hypocriticism. Contemp. Sociol 48:3264–66
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Tornow J, Martonosi M, Marrongelle K, Tilbury D, Easterling W et al. 2020. Dear colleague letter: open science for research data Publ. 20-068 Natl. Sci. Found Washington, DC: https://nsf.gov/pubs/2020/nsf20068/nsf20068.jsp
  136. Tsai AC, Kohrt BA, Matthews LT, Betancourt TS, Lee JK et al. 2016. Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research. Soc. Sci. Med. 169:191–98
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Turkle S. 2011. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other New York: Basic
  138. Van Cleve N. 2016. Crook County: Racism and Injustice in America's Largest Criminal Court Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  139. Van Maanen J. 2011. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. , 2nd ed..
  140. Vargas R. 2016. Wounded City: Violent Turf Wars in a Chicago Barrio New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  141. Venkatesh SA. 2008. Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets New York: Penguin
  142. Walford G. 2009. The practice of writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Ethnogr. Educ. 4:2117–30
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Walford G. 2018. The impossibility of anonymity in ethnographic research. Qual. Res. 18:5516–25
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Wingfield AH. 2019. Flatlining: Race, Work, and Health Care in the New Economy Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  145. Wutich A, Bernard HR. 2016. Sharing qualitative data & analysis. With whom and how widely? A response to “Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research. .” Soc. Sci. Med. 169:199–200
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Young C. 2018. Model uncertainty and the crisis in science. Socius 4:1–7
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Zaloom C. 2006. Out of the Pits: Traders and Technology from Chicago to London Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-090320-124805
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error