Search results

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.

This conceptual paper seeks to critically evaluate and illuminate the diverse autoethnographic methodologies that are pivotal for understanding the dynamics of contemporary workspaces. The objective is to contribute to the ongoing scholarly debate on the value of autoethnography in workplace research and explore how it can shed light on complex organizational phenomena.

The paper adopts a narrative literature review approach, focusing on four main forms of autoethnography: realist, impressionistic, expressionistic and conceptualistic autoethnographies. Each form is discussed and dissected, emphasizing their specific sub-forms and illustrating their application through representative examples. The paper engages in a critical debate on utilizing autoethnography in workplace research.

The findings illuminate how autoethnographic methods can be used to gain nuanced and complex understandings of personal experiences situated in workplace culture, as well as how broader social and cultural contexts shape these experiences. The study also highlights the potential of these methods to explore marginalized and silenced stories within workplaces and contribute to the knowledge on power dynamics, inequalities and injustices embedded in the organizational culture.

The following contribution discusses approaches for conducting autoethnographic explorations of selected work environments, offering researchers valuable insights into these methods' application. Through better comprehension and application of these methodologies, researchers can enhance their contribution toward cultivating more inclusive and equitable workplace environments.

The paper stands out in its extensive review and critical discussion of the autoethnographic methods as applied in workplace research. It expands upon individual autoethnographic studies by providing a comprehensive, multifaceted perspective, delving into the merits and limitations of these approaches in particular context of researching contemporary places of work.

The three authors of this paper are intrigued by ideas and how they are created. The purpose of this paper is to explore idea creation and work by means of remote collaborative autoethnography.

During the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020, the authors sent texts to each other, followed up on each other's thoughts and discussed them in online meetings. They shared, analyzed and eventually theorized their lived experiences in order to understand creating ideas as social and cultural experience.

The authors develop the notions of “shelter” and “crutch” to make sense of the complexity of creating ideas together; theorize how emotions and identities are entangled in idea work; and discuss how time, space and power relations condition it.

The authors contribute to understanding idea work in a remote collaborative autoethnography by highlighting its emotional, identity-related and power-laden nature.

The purpose of this paper is to make a case for the strength of qualitative work, but more specifically for various kinds of ethnographies.

The authors argue that global neoliberal and audit culture policies have crept into academic research, tertiary education practice, and research culture.

The authors then discuss major tenets of and make the case for the use of auto-, duo-, and collaborative-ethnographies as caring practices and research method(ologies) that may in fact push back against such hegemonic neoliberal practices in the academy. Finally, the authors link these caring types of ethnographies to the papers within this special issue.

This is an original look at the concepts of auto-, duo-, and collaborative-ethnographies with relation to caring practices.

How do females with multiple sources of identity deal with intersectional identity tensions and perceived lack of access to social power? The study focuses on how social relationships form and develop in masculinised settings between construction workers and a petite female researcher through perceived notions of equality and inequality. Through autoethnographic tales, the study examines how an academic home comer navigates between conflicting professional and cultural identities, in their native country.

Using collaborative autoethnography, the study examines how the intersections of being a young petite female and a “partial” insider in a male-dominated construction industry influences the researcher's identity work process and her quest for social power.

The findings suggest that to access referent social power, the researcher covers stigmatised intersectional attributes and reveals a more favourable identity. The fieldwork journey of the young petite female researcher highlights that identity work is a situational process that evolves with respondent relationships, respondent assigned roles, perceived notion of access to power and struggles of cultural versus professional identity. The reader is also taken through the collaborative autoethnographic journey of a female researcher and her doctoral studies supervisor.

This paper makes several contributions. First, it contributes to the academic literature on intersectionality of identity, especially concentrating on the intersectional attributes of petite physical stature, gender and perceived lack of access to social power. Second, this paper theorises identity work processes as an indirect strategy of social power in researcher-and-researched relationships. Last, through collaborative autoethnography of female researchers' fieldwork journey, this study contributes to the body of knowledge on academic home comers as “partial” insiders in their native country.

The purpose of this study is to provide a practical guide and checklist for newcomers to autoethnography.

The approach is grounded in autoethnographic methodology, functioning as a comprehensive teaching resource.

When used as a learning resource, this study will enhance the work of beginning autoethnographers.

As an arts and humanities and social science-based research approach, autoethnography is a vital, creative methodology in advancing social justice in mental health.

This study, written by an experienced teacher, mentor and supervisor of the approach with an international reputation, is original in its provision of a comprehensive teaching resource in article form to assist the development of beginning autoethnographers.

The authors’ aim in this commentary is to critically assess the potential benefits and limitations of collaborative autoethnography (CAE) as a research tool to be used by qualitative researchers during this unprecedented, methodologically challenging time when physical isolation and distancing are the best strategies to prevent spread of the virus.

The authors probe into the potential of collaborative reflection on self-narrative as an alternative and perhaps timely research approach.

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered our experiences of conventional teaching, learning and research. It is a scholarly challenging time, particularly for qualitative researchers in the social sciences whose research involves data collection methods that require face-to-face human interactions. Due to the worldwide lockdowns, self-isolation and social distancing, qualitative researchers are encountering methodological difficulties in continuing with their empirical fieldwork. In such circumstances, researchers are exploring alternative methodological approaches, taking advantage of telecommunication and digital tools for remote data collection. However, the authors argue that qualitative researchers should consider utilizing self-narratives of their experiences during the pandemic as a rich source of qualitative data for further delving into the socioeconomic, political and cultural impacts of the pandemic.

The authors’ focus might be secondary in the minds of many social scientists who are directly contributing to our understanding of how the pandemic has upended communities. However, despite some limitations and ethical concerns, we urge qualitative researchers to embrace the potentials of CAE to study society, especially, but not only, in this unprecedented time.

In this study, two mother-scholars describe their lived experiences working in higher education in the USA while parenting children with disabilities. They situate their narratives within the context of institutionalized motherhood, courtesy stigma and the career plateau experienced by many working mothers of children with disabilities.

Within this collaborative autoethnography, the authors employ autoethnographic narrative and poetic inquiry.

The authors reveal unique work-life tensions that they have experienced as mothers, teachers and scholars, reflecting on the experiences that led them to become advocates for people and families with disabilities.

The authors aim to reduce stigma and to disrupt the career plateau by offering suggestions to help coworkers and supervisors be more supportive of working parents of children with disabilities.

The authors enumerate the advantages of collaborative autoethnography in uncovering how stigma against mothers of children with disabilities is manifested within an academic community.

This research is situated at a metropolitan university in Melbourne (Australia) where the authors work in initial teacher education programs within the same faculty. The purpose of this study is to raise awareness that collegial, collaborative and “co-caring” environments can foster an improved sense of belonging, acceptance and inclusion in the academy. They also argue that communities of practice may foster an improved sense of belonging that enhances empowerment and harmony among all staff in academia in pandemic times and beyond.

The authors draw on case study methodology as a qualitative approach to understand and illuminate the phenomena under study. Case study methodology provides an in-depth understanding of their trifocal voices, as it allows them to voice their stories through collaborative autoethnography. The authors use self-narratives to unpack their sense of belonging in academic spaces. Collaborative autoethnography (CAE) enabled them to work together as a team of women and as a community of researchers.

The findings foreground the responsibilities of casual staff while concomitantly articulating the challenges faced by both permanent and casual staff to create a “sense of belonging” in the academy. The authors found that social connection engenders a sense of belonging and inclusion within a space that is often beset by neoliberal ideologies of competitiveness and individual achievement. They articulate their stress, pressure and uncertainty as permanent and as casual academics working supportively to develop and maintain identity in very difficult circumstances. They share how they developed professional relationships which bring unforeseen benefits and personal friendship at a time of especially restrictive practices.

The paper includes three voices, a limitation in itself, thus generalisations cannot be made to other academics or institutions. Employing CAE offers the possibility of delving more deeply into the emotional complexities inherent within this method for further research. They recommend a sense of “co-caring” as a form of pastoral care in the “induction program” for all academics including casual staff. While this may not “strategically” fit in with many because of power imbalances, the journey of co-caring and sharing and building friendships within the academy has a limited presence in the literature and calls for further investigation.

The authors draw attention to the need for higher education institutes to recognise the role permanent staff play when working with casual academics.

The authors draw attention to the need to be inclusive and collaborative as a way to improve the divide and strengthen connections between permanent and casual academics at university worksites. This is imperative given the shifting demographics within Australia and its workforce. They also highlight issues of race in the academy.

This is an original work carried out by the authors. It raises concerns about a sense of belonging in the academy, job certainty and the place of people of colour as these issues may also be experienced by other full-time and casual academics.

The paper introduces the autoethnography as a healing and everyday resistance strategy for marginalized voices. The focus is to deliver the author’s own reflections on some key moments and experiences to stimulate the discussion on autoethnography as a critical instrument channeling one’s reflexivity in the higher education context.

The paper draws on a case study of Chinese academic professionals to inspire the discussion on the research and practical values of autoethnography. It also provides conceptual reflections on the political meaning and functions of autoethnography.

The paper highlights two key aspects of autoethnography in the higher education context. Firstly, it emphasizes the importance of autoethnography in navigating the personal political front. Secondly, it promotes the integration of autoethnography into the ordinary lives of overseas Chinese academic professionals for daily healing and resistance.

The paper explores political sensitivity as an important dimension of workplace ethnography. Recognizing political sensitivity avows autoethnography a political act and a research framework, through which the (auto)ethnographer examines his or her own principles for negotiating justice and interpreting the ownership of personal identity against the influx of politically-charged opinions from the surrounding.