Now that I’m well on the way to writing my paper as an autoethnography (well…not really…but at least I’ve decided on a direction!) I have been devouring more articles and book chapters on the topic. This morning I discovered a fantastic ebook which will prove to be very helpful in the writing of my methodology chapter.
Firstly I was happy to see that I already “know” most of the researchers mentioned in the chapter I read, “Autoethnography”. The chapter provides helpful definitions in simple language.
Etherington presents a reassuring point as she opens this chapter. She quotes Gergen and Gergen (2002, p.14):
“In using oneself as an ethnographic exemplar, the researcher is freed from the traditional conventions of writing. One’s unique voicing – complete with colloquialisms, reverberations from multiple relationships, and emotional expressiveness – is honoured” (p. 137).
Why does this quote attract me and reassure me? Here is another example of my worrying that my writing isn’t good enough, isn’t up to standard. The pressure my colleagues feel when instructed to write in school or PD settings is what I can identify in myself here. But is it reassuring? Is personal voice easier than copying traditional conventions…that I will see in the next few weeks.
“Autoethnography is an autobiographical genre of writing and research that has been described as a ‘blend of ethnography and autobiographical writing that incorporates elements of one’s own life experience when writing about others’ (Scott-Hoy 2002, p.276); a form of self-narrative that places the self within a social context (Reed-Danahay 1997). Autoethnography is a word that describes both a method and a text.
Ellis and Bochner (2000, p.739) describe the process of how researchers create autoethnography: As they zoom backward and forward, inward and outward, distinctions between the personal and the cultural become blurred, sometimes beyond distinct recognition…
Ethnography, has traditionally focused on the ‘other’ as an object of study, typically spending time observing people in other cultures and societies, but in more recent times, influenced by feminism, postmodernism and an increasing understanding of the role of researcher reflexivity, experimental methods have been proliferating among sociologists, anthropologists and more generally across disciplines such as communication studies, psychology, women’s studies, management and organizational studies, theatre studies, literature, health sciences, education and sports science (Bochner and Ellis 2002; Ellis and Bochner 1996) (Etherington, 2004, p. 139-140).
When I read Mel’s description of her research journey I sat in front of the computer screen and cried. I connected with her honest descriptions of her experiences and discoveries. Mel’s short text about her research has helped me to better understand the criteria Laurel Richardson (2000, p.934) uses for assessing social science papers for publication:
- Does the work make a substantive contribution?
- Does the work have aesthetic merit?
- Is the work reflexive enough?
- What is the impact of this work on me?
- Does the work provide me with a sense of ‘lived experience’?
Another point made about the validity of self study is made by Etherington. She quotes Braud (1998, p. 219):
“When feelings of excitement, surprise, and delight are supplemented by feelings of awe and gratitude, researchers can be assured that they are being true to the experiences that are being explored and that their approach and findings are valid” (p. 149).This is of course the challenge awaiting me…
The author mentions researchers (Mykhalovskiy, 1997; Picart, 2002; Sparkes, 2002) who disapprove of autoethnography, those who claim that this kind of work is egoistic, self-absorbed and vain. The author explains that in order for the researcher producing autoethnography to ensure that his or her work does not fit those negative descriptions, they must ensure that they fully understand the purpose of the study, are entirely aware of their own reasons for choosing this kind of research and have the ability to ensure that the work is high in “aesthetic, personal, social and academic value” (p. 141).
Etherington also presents Janice Morse’s criticism of autoethnography. Morse (2000) claims that it is extremely difficult to protect other people connected with narratives in the study as they are often recognizable. The advantages and disadvantages of publishing autoethnographic research under pseudonyms are discussed.
Another problem with this exposive kind of research is the risk of the student/new researcher becoming vulnerable or disadvantaged professionally after publishing stories of weakness or difficulty.
I was interested to read about memory and it’s role in the process. One of the things that has been worrying me is that maybe I won’t remember enough. Since I have begun writing narrative drafts, I have been surprised by the way that I seem to draw threads of recollection from my teaching memories. I will definately return to the following quote:
“Writing stimulates and facilitates the motor and sensory regions of the brain, and can help us recover additional fragments of former experiences (Penn 2001). Half-known aspects of our selves can be accessed through the metaphors we use in our writing as we ‘reach intuitively into some part of ourselves that is outside our notice – still unnamed but there’ (Penn 2001, p.45). In telling our stories we are also re-affirming and re-educating our selves, our experiences and our lives and creating new stories. Writing autoethnography involves us in a kind of ‘recollection’, which is more than remembering” (p. 146).
Etherington, K. (2004). Becoming a reflexive researcher: Using our selves in research. London: Jessica Kingsley Press. Available from www.ebooks.com/