This personal account of Dr Chaim Noy’s academic career reminded me of the wonderful session at the Monash Winter School 2011, “Educational Research Beyond Borders: Personal stories from the field” where Dr Scott Bulfin and Dr Richard Smith told of their own experiences.
I always enjoy hearing how the road is never straight and clear of obstacles. Noy’s account enabled me to peep backstage into the Israeli academic context – extremely foreign ground for me at this stage.
After completing the first draft of my canditure panel report, I decided to devote this morning to reading. I began with an interesting new article I found online this morning. The article by Kristin Wilson has a unique structure in that it uses “Pandora’s Box” as a means of presenting and analysing her relationships with students in her professional life. The mythological text is presented alongside stories of dialogue with students and the texts they produce and critical self- examination of the ways the lecturer creates and maintains those professional relationships.
There are some interesting thoughts about the grading of student work in the paper. How do we relate to the person behind the student work? How do we separate (or unite) the paper before us from the way the student functions in the course? How much time and effort can we put into the reading and assessment of each text when we are overloaded and short on time? Rubrics vs personal comments directed at the writer and his or her creation? How does the reality of workload and other restraints affect the way we believe assessment should be approached?
I particularly liked the way the author concludes the article. After looking long and hard in the mirror, Wilson concludes:
I can see the connections between this article and that of Julian Kitchen’s relational teaching theory.
This autoethnographic article about Wilson’s own teaching experience, indeed invites me to examine my own teaching practice. How aware am I of those birds flying around the classroom? How prepared am I to ask for relationships instead of role playing? How possible is it in a 30 hour course?
I think this is the real strength of autoethnography – powerful personal writing of the local, the specific, allows the reader to examine other contexts and to explore the general, the universal.
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:
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:
I’m of to a Monash HDR seminar online, I’ll try to summarize more in the morning.
Often when I read Faultlines, Ward’s informative blog on writing a PhD, I encounter inspiring materials which help me as a writer and as a researcher. I have written here before that I began blogging after reading an article by Ward on her blogging experiences.
Today I read about Lilia’s honest post on publishing a PhD which is both exposing and highly personal.
Another wonderful source of information I discovered through Ward is the inspiring How I write series from Stanford – transcripts, videos etc.
Dyson discusses the methodology of auto ethnography (he writes the term as 2 words) and the use of metaphors in narrative research writing.
Some of the issues dealt with in the article:
The author describes the process through which he understood that research through personal narrative is legitimate:
“With this understanding of narrative in mind I began to recognise that the knowledge, which I was constructing – through my own experiences, encounters and interactions with the world – was legitimate. It was my reality that I was a part of, yet also apart from, that I was constructing and, dare I say it, creatively inventing through the narrative text generated using language” (p. 37).
Dyson chooses to quote Polkinghorne (1997, p.7):
“No longer are knowledge statements considered to be mirrored reflections of reality as it is in itself; rather, they are human constructions of models or maps of reality.” This comment blends in well with the other affirmations for the legitimacy of narrative I have found. It connects with the claims I have written about that in postmodernist thinking about research there is no one truth, every claim to knowledge is in doubt until it proves its validity.
Dyson describes the process, how he came to adopt auto ethnography for his research, for example:
“As my understanding of the narrative approach developed I began to recognise that it was an appropriate means of telling my story” (p. 37).
“To resolve this I visited with the ‘big guns in research’ i.e. the authorities in this narrative /auto ethnographic style. Reading the work of Ellis and Bochner convinced me that…” (p. 37).
“In reading the researchers of narrative and auto ethnography (Denzin, 1997; Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Ellis, 1997; Ellis and Bochner, 2000; Patton, 2002; Reed-Danahay, 1997; Richardson, 1995; Tierney and Lincoln, 1997; Van Maanen, 1995) I began to understand that the subjective was legitimate and nothing can ever be totally impersonal, or totally independent, of the writer. In realising this my focus as a researcher evolved a little more as I came to understand what could be achieved in using such a personal and powerful tool as auto ethnography” (p. 38).
What is auto ethnography?
Dyson uses the same definitions as Deunte:
Auto ethnography as described by Ellis and Bochner is a genre of writing that “displays multiple layers of consciousness connecting the personal to the cultural” (p. 739) They claim that the distinctions between the cultural and the personal become blurred as the author changes the focus and moves back and forth between looking outward and looking inward” (p. 38).
“Reed-Danahay (1997) suggests that “One of the main characteristics of an auto ethnographic perspective is that the auto ethnographer is a boundary-crosser and the role can be characterised as that of a dual identity” (p. 3). In presenting a history of auto ethnography Reed-Danahay (1997) identifies the many different understandings of the term. She defines her use of the term as the form of self-narrative that places the self within a social context. It is both a method and a text in a similar way to ethnography but the self is embedded” (p. 38).
Dyson acknowledges the changes taking place in himself as a person and as a researcher as he proceeded on his research journey . He used his growing set of self understandings to foster perceptions into the cultural group of which he is a member.
“Within auto ethnographic writing the author and researcher necessarily reveals his or her hand, or voice, up front. As explained by Ellis and Bochner (2000), “The goal is to enter and document the moment-to-moment, concrete details of a life. That’s an important way of knowing as well” (p. 761). Further to this they suggest that “Auto ethnography provides an avenue for doing something meaningful for yourself and the world” (p. 761)” (p. 39).
The important point for me here is not to read these points about autoethnography (as I have already read them in different words in different places) but to see how Dyson presents them explicitly as part of his explanation of the methodology chosen by him.
“In the telling of my story I am not declaring my emerging knowledge as scientific truth, or as a discovery beyond me, but rather as my creative construction of a reality, which I have lived through” (p. 39).
“…an auto ethnography is a presentation of one person’s view, or map, of reality, constructed around and through other people. It is a good story, which does not establish truth, like an argument, but presents verisimilitude, that is lifelikeness” (p. 46).
“Rather than be a seeker of ‘the truth’ the auto ethnographer reveals ‘the voice of the insider’ who has sought new knowledge and understandings of the world and found what was unknown to them when they began the journey. The credibility of such research is established through the verisimilitude revealed and the ‘ringing true’ of the quality story related” (p. 46).
Writing in first person
“Ellis suggests that authors aren’t encouraged to write articles in first person (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). Malin supports this by declaring that we have now come a long way from the time we felt compelled to refer to ourselves, in third person, as the ‘researcher’ (Malin, 1999). I prepared my dissertation and now write in the first person as much as possible because I believe that writing in first person brings with it a personal accountability, an active voice, presenting a truthworthy narrative, which contains the pitfalls as well as the strengths” (p. 40).
Dyson discusses the danger associated with the exposure of writing in first person. He acknowledges that the researcher becomes vulnerable to criticism but affirms the power of the first person possesses in communicating with the reader.
The use of metaphor in narrative writing
Dyson chose the metaphor of a journey for his research story, in particular the journey of a mountain stream. He believes that metaphor deepens our thought and our knowing and can enable us to arrive at understands beyond those we expected were possible. Metaphor enhances and intensifies reflection. Connections between the journey of the mountain stream and Dyson’s research story are presented in a table on page 44.
“The auto ethnographer, like other qualitative researchers, uses metaphor to order thoughts, experiences and to construct a reality about lived experiences rather than use particular procedures, to generate formal and empirical truths. Metaphor is used because of its power to bring new things into consciousness leading to initially unperceived knowledge. It generates lifelikeness and has the power to move a human being to new levels of consciousness as the various parts of a journey are pondered and unravelled” (p. 46).
The whole story is never told…
“There are risks involved in telling personal and professional stories and seldom can the whole story ever be told. Although there are parts that should, or can, never be shared on moral and ethical grounds what is told, is told, from my perspective with my filters engaged” (p. 44).
Dyson describes the stage when a researcher sees things differently from the way that he saw them initially. The life of the researcher in turn changes because of this new outlook on the world. He claims that the change occurs as a result of a new level of personal conciousness but forms a novel “‘worldview’ rather than just a ‘me view'” (p. 45).
Dyson, M. (2007). My story in a profession of stories: Autoethnography – an empowering methodology for educators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 32(1), 36-48. Retrieved from http://ajte.education.ecu.edu.au/ISSUES/PDF/321/Dyson.pdf
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:
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/
Looking more seriously at autoethnography I decided to look for a relevant example. In this journal article, Duarte describes her experiences in professional development, looks critically at her narratives and draws conclusions relevant for her teaching and for the work of other educators.
I paid particular attention to the way she presents the different parts of her paper in the abstract and then goes on to signpost them:
“The first part provides a brief introduction of autoethnography as a reflexive writing genre; the second part presents the broad narrative – that of myself as a ‘neophyte pedagogue on a journey of discovery’; the third part reflects on the challenges of the implementation of the redesigned subjects (courses) in the aftermath of the project, and the fourth part raises some important institutional issues that emerged from the experience” (p. 1).
The author writes of her “shifts of consciousness” (p.1) as she learned new educational theories and mastered new teaching abilities. This is in fact what I am aiming to follow in the next few weeks. I am planning to examine my teaching practices and to compare them with the many exciting thoughts which have been filling my consciousness in the past few months. It is clear to me that I will be making enormous changes in practice when I get back into the classroom in September. In addition, my ideas for a totally different PD program are already forming and taking shape.
The author quotes Ellis & Bochner (2000 p. 793) and gives their definition of autoethnography:
“an autobiographical genre of writing and research that displays multiple layers of consciousness, connecting the personal to the cultural” (p. 2). Duarte describes autoethnography “As a reflexive genre of writing” it “situates the self within the context of a culture, sub-culture or group, and studies one’s experience along with that of other members of the group…Autoethnography has no pretense of objectivity” (p. 2). She explains:
“Autoethnographic writing begins with a descriptive narrative of events and activities that unfold within a particular culture and then develops into a reflective analysis of these events and activities to generate new insights and to enhance the researcher’s sensitivity towards the knowledge gained in the process” (p. 2).
Duarte writes about those moments in her learning which caused her to stop,and examine her practice differently. She calls those “aha moments” and borrows a helpful term from Mezirow (1990) a “transformative learning” incident (p.6).
It was interesting for me to see how the author made the shift from personal to what she calls “institutional” focus. She lists the various issues arising from her studies and describes the challenges and questions which remain open.
Duarte, F. (2007). Using autoethnography in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Reflective practice from the ‘other side of the mirror’. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 1-11. Retrieved from http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl