Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Auto Ethnograph
Auto Ethnograph
Autoethnography is a form of self-reection and writing that explores the researchers personal experience and
connects this autobiographical story to wider cultural, political, and social meanings and understandings.[1][2] It
diers from ethnography a qualitative research method
in which a researcher uses participant observation and
interviews in order to gain a deeper understanding of a
groups culture in that autoethnography focuses on the
writers subjective experience rather than, or in interaction with, the beliefs and practices of others. As a form
of self-reective writing, autoethnography is widely used
in performance studies, as a method in living educational
research and English.
1
1.1
Autoethnography as a qualitative
research method
Denition
1.2
Epistemological/Theoretical ground
Autoethnography diers from ethnography, (a social research method employed by anthropologists and sociologists), in that it embraces and foregrounds the researchers
subjectivity rather than attempting to limit it, as in empirical research. While ethnography tends to be understood as a qualitative method in the social sciences that
describes human social phenomena based on eldwork,
autoethnographers are themselves the primary participant/subject of the research in the process of writing per- Also, doing autoethnographic work, many researchers at1
Higher education is also featuring more as the contextual backdrop for autoethnography probably due to the
convenience of researching ones own organisation (see
Sambrook, Stewart, & Roberts, 2008; Doloriert & Sambrook, 2009, 2011). Such contributions explore the
autoethnographer as a researcher/ teacher/ administrator doing scholarly work and/or as an employee working in Higher Education. Recent contributions include
Humphreys (2005) exploration of career change, Pelias
(2003) performance narrative telling of the competing
pressures faced by an early career academic and Sparkes
(2007) heartfelt story of an academic manager during the
Analytic autoethnographers focus on destressful Research Assessment Exercise (2008). There
veloping theoretical explanations of broader
are several contributions that are insightful for the student
social phenomena, whereas evocative auautoethnographer including Sambrook, et al. (2008) who
toethnographers focus on narrative presentaexplore power and emotion in the student-supervisor retions that open up conversations and evoke
lationship, Doloriert and Sambrook (2009) who explore
emotional responses. (p. 445)
the ethics of the student 'auto'reveal, Rambo (2007) and
her experiences with review boards, and nally Doloriert
A special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Ethnog- & Sambrook (2011) discussion on managing creativity
raphy (Vol 35, Issue 4, August 2006)[3] contains several and innovation within a PhD thesis.
articles on the diverse denitions and uses of autoethnography. An autoethnography can be analytical (see Leon Researchers have begun to explore the intersection of
Anderson), written in the style of a novel (see Carolyn diversity, transformative learning, and autoethnography.
[4]
Elliss methodological novel The Ethnographic I), perfor- Glowacki-Dudka, Tre, and Usman (2005) rst promative (see the work of Norman K. Denzin, and the an- posed autoethnography as a tool to encourage diverse
thology The Ends of Performance) and many things in learners to share diverse worldviews in the classroom
between. Symbolic interactionists are particularly inter- and other settings. Both transformative learning and auested in this method, and examples of autoethnography toethnography are steeped in an epistemological worldbased on incan be found in a number of scholarly journals, such as view that reality is ever-changing and largely
[5]
examines
the
dividual
reexivity.
Drick
Boyd
(2008)
Qualitative Inquiry, the Journal of the Society for the Study
impact
of
white
privilege
on
a
diverse
group
of
individof Symbolic Interactionism, the Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, and the Journal of Humanistic Ethnogra- uals. Through the autoethnographical process and transphy. It is not considered mainstream as a method by formative learning he comes to appreciate the impact of
and those of others. Simimost positivist or traditional ethnographers, yet this ap- whiteness on his own actions
[6]
employs
autoethnography to
larly,
Brent
Sykes
(2014)
proach to qualitative inquiry is rapidly increasing in popmake
meaning
of
his
identity
as
both
Native American
ularity, as can be seen by the large number of scholarly
and
caucasian.
In
his
implications,
he
challenges
higher
papers on autoethnography presented at annual conferSince autoethnography is a broad and ambiguous category that encompasses a wide array of practices (Ellingson & Ellis, 2008, pp. 449450), autoethnographies
vary in their emphasis on the writing and research process (graphy), culture (ethnos), and self (auto) (ReedDanahay, 1997, p. 2). According to Ellingson and Ellis
(2008), autoethnographers recently began to make distinction between two types of autoethnography; one is
analytic autoethnography and the other is evocative autoethnography.
2.1
Autoethnographer as a storyteller/narrator
education institutions and educators to provide spaces for data involves interpretation on the part of the researcher
learners to engage in autoethnography as a tool to pro- (Hammersley in Genzuk). However, rather than a pormote transformative learning.
trait of the Other (person, group, culture), the dierence
Another recent extension of autoethnographic method is that the researcher is constructing a portrait of the self.
involves the use of collaborative approaches to writing,
sharing, and analyzing personal stories of experience.
This approach is also labeled collaborative autobiography (Allen-Collinson & Hockey, 2001; Lapadat, 2009),
and has been used in teaching qualitative research methods to university students.
Autoethnography is also used in lm as a variant of the
standard documentary lm. It diers from the traditional
documentary lm, in that its subject is the lmmaker
himself or herself. An autoethnography typically relates
the life experiences and thoughts, views and beliefs of the
lmmaker, and as such it is often considered to be rife
with bias and image manipulation. Unlike other documentaries, autoethnographies do not usually make a claim
of objectivity. An important text on autoethnography in
lmmaking is Catherine Russells Experimental Ethnography: The Work of Film in the Age of Video (Duke UP,
1999). For Autoethnographic artists, see also Jesse Cornplanter, Kimberly Dark, Peter Pitseolak, Ernest Spybuck.
Autoethnography is being used in multiple subdisciplines
in Communication and Media Studies. For example,
Bob Krizek took an autoethnographic approach to sports
communication during the closing of Comisky Park. [7]
[8]
Tony Adams utilized autoethnography to examine gay
identity and the metaphor of coming out of the closet.
[9]
Andrew F. Herrmann examined a period of unemployment during the nancial crisis through an autoethnographic approach. [10] Autoethnographer Robyn Boylorn
examined televised media and the representations of race.
[11]
Jimmie Manning used autoethnography to examine
polymediated narrative and relationships. [12] Autoethnographic approaches are also being used in family and interpersonal communication research.[13][14][15][16][17][18]
2.1
Autoethnographer
teller/narrator
as
story-
In dierent academic disciplines (particularly communication studies and performance studies), the term autoethnography itself is contested and is sometimes used
interchangeably with or referred to as personal narrative
or autobiography. Autoethnographic methods include
journaling, looking at archival records - whether institutional or personal, interviewing ones own self, and using
writing to generate a self-cultural understandings. Reporting an autoethnography might take the form of a traditional journal article or scholarly book, performed on
the stage, or be seen in the popular press. Autoethnography can include direct (and participant) observation of
daily behavior; unearthing of local beliefs and perception and recording of life history (e.g. kinship, education, etc.); and in-depth interviewing: The analysis of
3 EVALUATING AUTOETHNOGRAPHY
Evaluating autoethnography
3.1
In her books tenth chapter, titled Evaluating and Publishing Autoethnography (pp. 252~255), Ellis (2004)
discusses how to evaluate an autoethnographic project,
based on other authors ideas about evaluating alternative
modes of qualitative research. (See the special section
in Qualitative Inquiry on Assessing Alternative Modes
of Qualitative and Ethnographic Research: How Do We
Judge? Who Judges?) She presents several criteria for
good autoethnography mentioned by Bochner (2000),
Clough (2000), Denzin (2000) and Richardson (2000),
and indicates how these ideas resonate with each other.
First, Ellis mentions Laurel Richardson (2000, pp. 15
16) who described ve factors she uses when reviewing
personal narrative papers that includes analysis of both
evaluative and constructive validity techniques. The criteria are:
(a) Substantive contribution. Does
the piece contribute to our under-
3.2
Benets/Concerns of autoethnography
Instead, Ellis suggests to judge (autoethnographic writings) on the usefulness of the story, (Bochner, 2001)
rather than only on accuracy. (Ellis, 2004, p. 126) Art
argues that the real questions is what narratives do, what
consequences they have, to what uses they can be put.
Narrative is the way we remember the past, turn life into
language, and disclose to ourselves and others the truth
of our experiences (Bochner, 2001). In moving from
concern with the inner veridicality to outer pragmatics
of evaluating stories, Plummer also looks at uses, functions, and roles of stories, and adds that they need to have
rhetorical power enhanced by aesthetic delight (Plummer,
2001, p. 401).
Similarly, Laurel Richardson uses the metaphor of a crystal to deconstruct traditional validity (Richardson, 1997,
p. 92). A crystal has an innite number of shapes, dimensions and angels. It acts as a prism and changes shape, but
still has structure. Another writer, Patti Lather, proposes
counter-practices of authority that rupture validity as a
regime of truth (Lather, 1993, p .674) and lead to a critical political agenda (Olesen, 2000, p. 231). She mentions the four subtypes: ironic validity, concerning the
problems of representation; paralogical validity, which
honors dierences and uncertainties; rhizomatic validity, which seeks out multiplicity; and voluptuous validity,
which seeks out ethics through practices of engagement
and self-reexivity (Lather, 1993, pp. 685~686)" (Ellis,
2004, pp. 124~125).
3.1.2
3 EVALUATING AUTOETHNOGRAPHY
Self-narratives . . . are not so much academic as they are existential, reecting a desire to grasp or seize the possibilities of meaning, which is what gives life its imaginative and
poetic qualities . . . a poetic social science
does not beg the question of how to separate
good narrativization from bad . . . [but] the
good ones help the reader or listener to understand and feel the phenomena under scrutiny.
(p. 270)
3.3
Controversy of evaluating autoethnog- researchers, some scholars have suggested that the criraphy
teria used to judge autoethnography should not neces-
There are several ows of critiques with regard to evaluating autoethnographical works grounded in interpretive
paradigm. First, some researchers have criticized that
within qualitative research there are those that dismiss
anything but positivist notions of validity and reliability.
(see Doloriert and Sambrook, 2011, pp. 593595) For
example, Schwandt (1996, p. 60) argues that some social
researchers have come to equate being rational in social
science with being procedural and criteriological. Building on quantitative foundations, Lincoln and Guba (1985)
translate quantitative indicators into qualitative quality
indicators, namely: credibility (parallels internal validity), transferability (parallels external validity), dependability(parallels reliability), and conrmability (parallels
objectivity and seeks to critically examine whether the researcher has acted in good faith during the course of the
research). Smith (1984) and Smith and Heshusius (1986)
critique these qualitative translations and warn that the
claim of compatibility (between qualitative and quantitative criteria) cannot be sustained and by making such
claims researches are in eect closing down the conversation. Smith (1984, p. 390) points out that
What is clear . . . is that the assumptions of
interpretive inquiry are incompatible with the
desire for foundational criteria. How we are
to work out this problem, one way or another,
would seem to merit serious attention.
Secondly, some other researchers questions the need
for specic criteria itself. Bochner (2000) and Clough
(2000) both are concerned that too much emphasis on
criteria will move us back to methodological policing
and will takes us away from a focus on imagination,
ethical issues in autographic work, and creating better
ways of living. (Bochner, 2000a, p. 269) The autoethnographer internally judges its quality. Evidence
is tacit,individualistic, and subjective (see Richardson,
7
granted (Coey, 1999). Autoethnographies
may leave reviewers in a perilous position. [...]
the reviewers were not sure if the account was
proper research (because of the style of representation), and the verication criteria they
wished to judge this research by appeared to be
inappropriate. Whereas the use of autoethnographic methods may be increasing, knowledge of how to evaluate and provide feedback
to improve such accounts appears to be lagging. As reviewers begin to develop ways in
which to judge autoethnography, they must resist the temptation to seek universal foundational criteria lest one form of dogma simply
replaces another (Sparkes, 2002b, p. 223).
However, criteria for evaluating personal writing have barely begun to develop (DeVault,
1997). (p. 26)
See also
Layered account
References
[1] Marchal, Garance. (2010). Autoethnography. In Albert J. Mills, Gabrielle Durepos & Elden Wiebe (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol. 2, pp. 43-45).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
[2] Ellis, Carolyn. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
[3] Table of Contents. sagepub.com.
[4] Research for Social Change: Using Autoethnography to
Foster Transformative Learning. sagepub.com.
[5] Autoethnography as a Tool for Transformative Learning
About White Privilege. sagepub.com.
[6] Transformative Autoethnography. sagepub.com.
[7] Krizek, R. L. (1992a). Goodbye old friend: A sons
farewell to Comiskey Park. Omega, 25, 8793.
[12] Manning, Jimmie (2015). Ipsedixitism, Ipseity, and Ipsilateral Identity: The Fear of Finding Ourselves in Catsh.
In Herbig, A., Herrmann, A. F., & Tyma, A. W. (Eds).
(2015). Beyond new media: Discourse and critique in
a polymediated age. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, p.
83-108.
[13] Poulos, C. N. (2014). My fathers ghost: A story of encounter and transcendence. Qualitative Inquiry.
[14] Bochner, A. P. (2012). Bird on the wire: Freeing the father within me. Qualitative Inquiry, 18, 168173.
[15] Herrmann, A. F. (2011). Losing things was nothing
new: A familys story of foreclosure. Journal of Loss
and Trauma, 16, 497510.
[16] Herrmann, A. F. (2005). My fathers ghost: Interrogating
family photos. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 10, 337346
[17] Herrmann, A. F. (2014). The ghostwriter: Living a fathers unnished narrative. In J. Wyatt & T. E. Adams
(Eds.), On (writing) families: Autoethnographies of presence and absence, love and loss (pp. 95102). Rotterdam:
Sense
[18] Foster, E. (2002). Storm tracking: Scenes of marital disintegration. Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 804819.
6 Further reading
Allen-Collinson, J., & Hockey, J. (2001). Runners Tales: Autoethnography, injury and narrative.
Auto/Biography IX (1 & 2), 95-106.
Blumenfeld-Jones, D. (1995).Blumenfeld-Jones, D.
(1995). Fidelity as a Criterion for Practicing and
Evaluating Narrative Inquiry. In J. A. Hatch & R.
Wisniewski (Eds.), Life History and Narrative. London: Falmer.
Bochner, Arthur P., & Ellis, Carolyn. S. (2006).
Communication as autoethnography. In G. J. Shepherd, J. S. John & T. Striphas (Eds.), Communication as: Perspectives on theory (pp. 110122).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bochner, A. P. (2000). Criteria against ourselves.
Qualitative Inquiry 6(2), 266-272.
[9] Adams, T. E. (2011). Narrating the closet: An autoethnography of same-sex attraction. Walnut Creek, CA:
Left Coast Press, Inc.
Bochner, A. (2014). Coming to narrative: A personal history of paradigm change in the human sciences. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
[10] Herrmann, A. F. (2012). I know Im unlovable: Desperation, dislocation, despair, and discourse on the academic
job hunt. Qualitative Inquiry, 18, 247255.
[11] Boylorn, R. M. (2008). As seen on TV: An autoethnographic reection on race and reality television. Critical
Studies in Media Communication, 25, 413433.
6 FURTHER READING
Clough, P. (2000). Comments on setting criteria for
experimental writing. Qualitative Inquiry 6(2), 278291.
Humphreys, M. (2005). Getting Personal: Reexivity and Autoethnograhic Vignettes, Qualitative Inquiry, 11, 840-860.
Jones, S. H. (2005). (M)othering loss: Telling adoption stories, telling performativity. Text and Performance Quarterly, 25(2), 113-135.
9
Smith, J. K. (1984). The problem of criteria for
judging interpretive inquiry. Educational Evaluation and Policy Practice 6 (4, 379-391.
Smith, J. K., & L. Heshusius. (1986). Closing
down the conversation: The end of the quantitativequalitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational Researcher 15(1), 4-12.
Sparkes, A. C. (2000). Autoethnography and narratives of self: Reections on criteria in action. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 21-41.
Sambrook, S., Stewart, J., & Roberts, C. (2008).
Doctoral Supervision: Glimpses from Above, Below and in the Middle, Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 32(1), 71-84.
Sparkes, A.C. (2007). Embodiment, academics,
and the audit culture: a story seeking consideration,
Qualitative Research, 7(4), 521-550.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative
Research, (2nd ed., pp. 236247). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
10
Webb, H.S. (2012). Yanantin and Masintin in the
Andean World: Complementary Dualism in Modern Peru. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
Wohlfeil, M., & Whelan, S. (2008). Confessions of
a Movie-Fan: Introspection into a Consumer' Experiential Consumption of 'Pride & Prejudice'. European Advances in Consumer Research. 8, 137-143.
Wohlfeil, M., & Whelan, S. (2012). 'Saved!' by
Jena Malone: An Introspective Study of a Consumers Fan Relationship with a Film Actress. Journal of Business Research. 65:4, 511-519.
Zebroski, James, & Mack, Nancy (1992) Ethnographic Writing for Critical Consciousness. In C.
Mark Hurlbert and S. Totten (Eds.), Social Issues in
the English Classroom. Urbana, IL; NCTE.
Autoethnography Bibliography @ h2o playlist
6 FURTHER READING
11
7.1
Text
Autoethnography Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoethnography?oldid=667562960 Contributors: Fvw, Wereon, Piotrus, CanisRufus, Remuel, Hooperbloob, Espoo, Fingers-of-Pyrex, ArchCarrier~enwiki, Rjwilmsi, Jay-W, Morgan Leigh, SmackBot, Eric-Albert,
Bobet, Museumfreak, Ilikeeatingwaes, Sadads, Colonies Chris, Greenbreezegrl, Daedalus71, Vanisaac, Magioladitis, Terrek, Mvoorhis,
Vrac, CR Rik, TubularWorld, Rundaddy, JMcLuskey, Genzuk, Addbot, Jncraton, JohnBlenk, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Specksnyder, Hvchang,
Sophie Oliver, Jeirobinson33, Jfaina, Jncups, Plasticspork, ChuispastonBot, Frietjes, Clair.doloriert, Intobe, Meclee, Dbyoo, Professor13,
Perutraveler, Jacquelyn91, Charlottenburger25, Levinas 25, Besykes, DRnlhodges and Anonymous: 37
7.2
Images
7.3
Content license