I’m back from a two day break at the 4th Israeli conference on qualitative research which was held at the Ben Gurion Uni in Be’er Sheva. I found the sessions extremely stimulating and motivating and I left inspired and enthusiastic to continue my research.

I am gradually going to sift through my notes to find the points and the people I want to remember.

I arrived at the conference on time and immediately  bought the new book by Rivka Tuval-Mashiach and Gabriela Spector-Mersel: Narrative research: Theory, creation and interpretation. It won’t be easy reading but I must get acquainted with the Hebrew terms for my work.

The first session was about teacher education. A group from Levinsky Presented their work on metaphoric collages. Teacher educators created collages representing the way they understand the feedback sessions they hold with students. Narratives were then a means of describing the visual creation. This encounter of metaphor reminded me that I have been planning to examine metaphors which can help me describe my work. In this case, the most common metaphors were pregnancy and birth, journey and food.

I was disappointed that the main speakers, Prof Carolyn Ellis and Prof. Arthur Bochner couldn’t make it in person, but the videoed session they sent was informative and well presented.

According to Bochner, the goal of social science inquiry is the creation of meaning in social life. There are 3 different purposes: a. prediction and control, b. interpretation and understanding, c. criticism and social change.

An important point made was that there is a false dichotomy between theory and story. Story can be very theoretical (e.g Dickens).

Qualitative research, according to Bochner, is looking at how we should live and not only exploring what we can know.

Another important point was to let our work tell the story and to stop being defensive about doing qualitative research.

Regarding autoethnography, Ellis and Bochner are less interested in defining the term as they see the search for definitions mainly political. People try to categorize research for the politics of publishing, tenure etc.

In the beginning they began with writing in the first person . There was a space in academic work that needed opening. There has always been controversy surrounding the term – “vocabulary has consequences”.

The speakers were asked what is the role of other peoples’ stories in autoethnography and the answer was of course, that all good ethnography has some self in it and that this work should portray the connection between self and others. Self is never in isolation. The researcher must attempt to touch the role of others and bring them in.

Autoethnography directs attention to the reason you chose to study this community. What is the engagement? What do you owe those communities as a researcher? These connections should be explicit.

The speakers were asked: What kind of a researcher is needed to do autoethnography? The answer included:

• in tune to self
• able to step outside and see yourself in different roles
• a good writer
• willing to be vulnerable
• able to present yourself in a vulnerable light

The answer to the question: How do you educate others to do autoethnography? was:

An autoethnographer is firstly a story teller. He or she must read a lot of literature, stories and write a lot. Audience awareness is very important. The writer need to attend to what the audience is doing with the story. In opening up the conversation, the reader is supposed to develop his or her own stories after reading the texts of others.

In autoethnography and personal narrative, the reader is seen as a collaborator in making meaning and not as the receiver of knowledge.

Ellis and Bochner were asked which issues are suitable for this research and it was explained that the theme does not have to be sadness and suffering. The researcher writes in order to “figure something out”. It was explained that it is more difficult to write about happiness, there is less tension in the writing, there is less “call to write”. Suffering is central to much autoethnographic work, as is social justice. The speakers stated that young researchers may not have the depth of experience required.

I want to look for Revision by Ellis when it comes out. It takes stories written in the past and looks critically at how they were written. Changes that have occurred since the writing was done and new interpretations are explored. The book reminds me of Fields of Play by Richardson.

When asked about contradiction, uncertainty and puzzles addressed by autoethnography, the answer given was that if  subjectivity is not displayed on the page, the work is problematic.

Regarding ethics questions, Bochner explained that the search for universal ethics guidelines , good for every situation isn’t very helpful. There are no easy answers.

Final messages were:

• -we need to find the opportunities to present the best of this work in our institutions
• -People are listening and are giving credibility to this research
• -concentrate on who in the world can join your conversation
• -Ask: Does this mean anything? Can it do something important?
• -Don’t do research for research’s sake

I’m of to a Monash HDR seminar online, I’ll try to summarize more in the morning.