Search results

Autoethnography is ethnographical and autobiographical at the same time. Here I intentionally place ‘ethnographical’ before ‘autobiographical’ to highlight the ethnographical character of this inquiry method. This character connotes that autoethnography utilizes the ethnographic research methods and is concerned about the cultural connection between self and others representing the society. This ethnographic aspect distinguishes autoethnography from other narrative-oriented writings such as autobiography, memoir, or journal.

All researchers have a self, but how many understand how their self informs their identity and world view? The use of self is vital in relationships, especially where helping others to learn is central to the role. Many occupations, such as teaching and health care, require the individual to engage in reflective practices to inform how individuals give of themselves in professional practice. Despite the potential power of analytic autoethnography, there is an absence of clear examples which clarify how the theory and method are linked. From my background as a lecturer and mental health nurse I argue the value of analytic autoethnography as research-based self-study to assist self-development. This chapter has two main aims: (i) to provide an example as to how the theory and method within analytic autoethnography articulate into a research design; and (ii) to forewarn researchers as to the areas which require early consideration when constructing an analytic autoethnography to safeguard the researcher’s psychological wellbeing. My experiences draw parallels between the cognitive reflective skills required within the research methods to review values and beliefs held within memories and mental health cognitive therapies. The potential for cathartic insights increases the researcher’s empathy to shape appropriate responses to assist others to learn.

The purpose of this paper is to review and organise the autoethnography literature: to explore the obstacles of and opportunities for autoethnography in organisation research; to support PhD students and supervisors who have chosen this methodological route to more clearly define their autoethnographic positions and choices; and to propose new research directions for organisational autoethnography.

The authors critically summarise autoethnography as a contemporary approach to organisational ethnography by looking back, looking at the present, and looking to the future. The authors briefly consider the historical and disciplinary development – and vehement critique – of autoethnography, trace its shifting epistemological positions and introduce three emergent “possibilities” of organisation autoethnography.

The authors highlight how autoethnography can tell stories otherwise silenced; exploring the mundane, ignored and distorted in current academic life, past and other work experiences, working with others through collaborative or co‐produced autoethnography in exciting new organisational contexts.

This paper is one of the first attempts to review autoethnography as a contemporary approach to organisation autoethnography.

This paper aims to draw attention to a unique paradox concerning doing an autoethnography as a PhD. On the one hand, a student may feel a pull towards revealing a vulnerable, intimate, autoethnographic self, yet on the other hand she may be pushed away from this because the oral/viva voce examination process may deny the student anonymity. Through the telling of this tale the complexities concerning self‐disclosure and student autoethnography reveal are explored.

The tale is autoethnographic: a fictionalised account based on real events and co‐constructed from substantial field notes, personal diaries, e‐mails, and reports.

This paper contributes to relational ethics concerned with self‐disclosure and the “I” of a reveal, and highlight the possibilities for developing Medford's notion of mindful slippage as a strategy for removing highly personal and possibly harmful elements within student autoethnography.

The paper provides a preliminary theoretical framework that has not been empirically tested and is situated within “introspective” autoethnographic research.

The paper takes an innovative approach to autoethnography, addressing ethical value systems specifically within a PhD context.

This chapter explored how authenticity and objectivity in autoethnography research are viewed from a new materialist perspective. The study is framed within Barad’s (2007) concept of agential realism, which reconceptualizes how objects are examined, and knowledge created in scientific activities. The findings showed that in terms of authenticity, new materialism suggests a non-representationalist voice, which argues against the need to exactly mirror pre-existing phenomena in some metaphysical world through language in traditional research paradigms. This means the researchers must give up the authority of their narrative voice as a privileged source of knowledge with a valued property of authenticity. The study suggests performative voice as an alternative. The performative narrator is concerned not with identifying who researchers are, and how they are similar or different from the Other, but how their experiences constrain what they know and how they represent participants or themselves in their worlds. Writing autoethnographies now is less a way of telling than a way of knowing in being. An agential-realist account of objectivity posits that “distance is not a prerequisite for objectivity, and even the notion of proximity takes separation too literally” (Barad, 2007, p. 359). So objectivity does not mean to be removed or distanced from what we, as individual subjects of cognition, are observing. Objectivity, instead, is embodied through specific material practices enacted between the subject and the object. This entails that “objectivity is about accountability and responsibility to what is real” (Barad, 2007, p. 91). This understanding of objectivity engenders a reconfiguring of data as diffractive phenomena and reliability as axiological intra-actions in what I now call an auto-ethico-ethnography.

Purpose – To introduce autoethnography as an innovative research approach within sport and physical culture, and consider its key tenets, strengths and weaknesses. For illustrative purposes, the chapter draws upon two specific autoethnographic research projects on distance running – one collaborative and one solo.

Design/methodology/approach – The design of the two projects is delineated, including methods of data collection and analysis: tape-recorded field and ‘head’ notes, personal and analytic logs, phenomenological, thematic and narrative data analysis. Issues of representation are addressed and the chapter explores salient, but often-overlooked, ethical considerations in undertaking autoethnographic research.

Findings – Key findings of two research projects are presented, cohering around issues of identity construction and identity work, together with lived body and sensory experiences of distance running.

Research limitations/implications – The limitations of using an autoethnographic approach are discussed, including in relation to fulfilling traditional, positivistic judgment criteria such as validity, reliability and generalisability; more appropriate criteria are proposed, particularly in relation to evocative autoethnographies. Novel forms of the genre: collaborative autoethnography and autophenomenography, are suggested as future directions for autoethnographic research in SPC.

Originality/value – The chapter provides a succinct introduction to the use of autoethnography in sport and physical culture, for those unfamiliar with the genre. The author also suggests an innovative variation – autophenomenography.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the possibilities of autoethnography as a commitment to care and a social justice agenda (Denzin, 2014:p. x).

Autoethnography can be seen as a “methodology that allows us to examine how the private troubles of individuals are connected to public issues and to public responses to these troubles” (Mills, 1959, cited in Denzin, 2014). This resonates strongly with the field of study: political care ethics, as the main focus is on how to promote a caring society. “Care” might be conceived broadly as everything the authors do to maintain and repair the world; i.e., as a social praxis.

Care ethics can benefit from autoethnography, as there is a strong(er) emphasis on “what matters,” what people care for, about and why, rather than on what is “right.” In this paper, the authors will thus explore the promises and pitfalls of autoethnography for a caring society, by connecting insights from theories on political care ethics and qualitative inquiry with the own autoethnographic performance at the International Conference on Qualitative Inquiry in May 2015.

Care ethics can benefit from autoethnography, as there is a strong(er) emphasis on “what matters,” what people care for, about and why, rather than on what is “right.”