Living Autoethnography - Connecting Life and Research - Ngunjiri - Journal of Research Practice

1/7/2015
Home
LivingAutoethnography:ConnectingLifeandResearch|Ngunjiri|JournalofResearchPractice
About Announcements CurrentIssue PastIssues Contributors Forum
Home>Volume6,Issue1,2010>Ngunjiri
JournalHelp
JournalofResearchPractice
Volume6,Issue1,ArticleE1,2010
C URREN T I SSUE
Editorial:
Subscribe
LivingAutoethnography:ConnectingLifeandResearch
FaithWamburaNgunjiri
Campolo College of Graduate and Professional Studies, Eastern University, St. Davids, PA,
USA
fngunjir@eastern.edu
USER
Username
Password
Rememberme
Login
KathyAnnC.Hernandez
LoebSchoolofEducation,EasternUniversity,PA,USA
khernand@eastern.edu
HeewonChang
LoebSchoolofEducation,EasternUniversity,PA,USA
hchang@eastern.edu
J O URN AL C O N TEN T
Search
SearchScope
All
Search
Browse
ByIssue
ByAuthor
ByTitle
Abstract
Combiningethnography,biography,andselfanalysis,autoethnographyisa
qualitativeresearchmethodthatutilizesdataaboutselfandcontexttogain
anunderstandingoftheconnectivitybetweenselfandotherswithinthesame
context. This introductory article exposes the reader to our own praxis of
collaborative autoethnography to interrogate how we navigate the US
academyasimmigrantwomenfaculty.Beforeintroducingthearticlesinthis
special issue, we explore the autoethnography continuum, provide sample
areas covered by autoethnographers, and explicate the practice of
collaborativeautoethnography.Weconcludethispiecewithimplicationsfor
futureuseofautoethnographyasresearchmethod.
ARTI C L E TO O L S
Abstract
Printthisarticle
Indexingmetadata
Emailthisarticle (Login
required)
Emailtheauthor (Login
required)
PostaComment (Login
Keywords:collaborativeautoethnographyautoethnographycontinuum
SuggestedCitation:Ngunjiri,F.W.,Hernandez,K.C.,&Chang,H.(2010).Living
autoethnography:Connectinglifeandresearch[Editorial].JournalofResearchPractice,6(1),
ArticleE1.Retrieved[dateofaccess],from
http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/241/186
required)
I N F O RM ATI O N
ForReaders
ForAuthors
ForLibrarians
J RP I S L I STED I N :
1.Introduction
1/15
1/7/2015
Researchisanextensionofresearcherslives.Althoughmostsocialscientistshavebeentrained
to guard against subjectivity (selfdriven perspectives) and to separate self from research
activities, it is an impossible task. Scholarship is inextricably connected to selfpersonal
interest, experience, and familiarity. Working together on this special issue provided an
opportunity for us to candidly reflect on and dialogue about the motivations behind our
scholarship. Not surprisingly, at the very onset our dissertation studies were anchored in our
personalinterests.Ngunjiri(2007,2010)asaKenyanwomanstudiedAfricanwomenleaders
Hernandez(2005,2006),aTrinidadianwholivedandtaughtintheBritishVirginIslands(BVI)
priortocomingtotheUS,studiedhighschoolstudentsintheBVIandtheUSChang(1992),a
secondary educator, explored the culture of adolescents in a US high school. In spite of this
intimateconnectionwithourwork,wefollowedtraditionalscientificparadigmsinconducting
andreportingourwork.Foreachofus,therewaslittleroomforselfanalysisasresearcherand
participantintheresearchprocess.Thatstoryremaineduntoldithadtowaitforanotherday.
Theemergingrecognitionofautoethnographyasresearchmethodsignalsthatdayhascome.
RELATEDJOURNALS
Now,asimmigrantwomenofcolorintheUSacademy,weunapologeticallyclaimthatweare
doing autoethnography. The intersection of our socioidentities and the opportunities and
challengeswefaceintheacademyhasbecomeourpositionalitycollaborativeautoethnography
is our method of choice. In this article, we discuss the methodological tenets of
autoethnographyandthecollaborativeautoethnographythathasdrawnustogetherforthelast
coupleofyears.Themethodologicaldiscussionisfollowedbyanintroductiontothearticlesin
this special issue. We are pleased to present 10 highly selective articles discussing
autoethnography as research practice. We hope this collection continues to promote dialogue
and critical thinking about the scope and future direction of autoethnography as research
method.
2.AutoethnographyasQualitative,SelfFocused,andContextConsciousMethod
Autoethnographyisaqualitativeresearchmethodthatutilizesdataaboutselfanditscontextto
gainanunderstandingoftheconnectivitybetweenselfandotherswithinthesamecontext.This
research method is distinctive from others in three ways: it is qualitative, selffocused, and
contextconscious. First, autoethnography is a qualitative research method (Chang, 2007
Denzin, 2006 Ellis, 2004 Ellis & Bochner, 2000). As a research method, autoethnography
takesasystematicapproachtodatacollection,analysis,andinterpretationaboutselfandsocial
phenomena involving self. This systematic and intentional approach to the sociocultural
understanding of self sets autoethnography apart from other selfnarrative writings such as
memoirandautobiography. Second, autoethnography is selffocused. The researcher is at the
centeroftheinvestigationasasubject(theresearcherwhoperformstheinvestigation)andan
object(a/theparticipantwhoisinvestigated).Autoethnographicdataprovidetheresearchera
window through which the external world is understood. Although the blurred distinction
betweentheresearcherparticipantrelationshiphasbecomethesourceofcriticism challenging
the scientific credibility of the methodology (Anderson, 2006 Holt, 2003 Salzman, 2002
Sparkes,2002),accesstosensitiveissuesandinnermostthoughtsmakesthisresearchmethoda
powerful and unique tool for individual and social understanding (Ellis, 2009). Third,
autoethnography is contextconscious. Rooted in ethnography (the study of culture),
autoethnography intends to connect self with others, self with the social, and self with the
context(ReedDanahay,1997Wolcott,2004).Thefocusonselfdoesnotnecessarymeanself
in a vacuum. A variety of othersothers of similarity (those with similar values and
experiences to self), others of difference (those with different values and experiences from
self),andothersofopposition(thosewithvaluesandexperiencesseeminglyirreconcilableto
self)areoftenpresentinstoriesaboutself(Chang,2008).Thismultiplicityofothersexistin
2/15
1/7/2015
thecontextwhereaselfinhabitstherefore,collectingdataaboutselfultimatelyconvergeswith
theexplorationofhowthecontextsurroundingselfhasinfluencedandshapedthemakeupof
self and how the self has responded to, reacted to, or resisted forces innate to the context.
Ethnographicattentiontothesocioculturalcontextisthefoundationofthisresearchmethod.
Autoethnographers pay varying levels of attention to narration/description and
analysis/interpretation of autobiographical data. According to Ellis and Bochner,
autoethnographersvaryintheiremphasisontheresearchprocess(graphy),onculture(ethno),
and on self (auto) such that different exemplars of autoethnography fall at different places
along the continuum of each of these three axes (Ellis & Bochner, 2000, p.740). The
continuumcouldbepresentedasinFigure1.Whereveroneisonthecontinuum,itrepresentsa
mixofartisticrepresentation,scientificinquiry,selfnarration,andethnography.However,we
couldarguethatsomeformsofautoethnography,particularlyinthewaytheyarewrittenand
conveyed, lean more toward art whereas others make more purposeful attempts at scientific
analysis. Some scholars categorize these differences as evocative versus analytical (see
Anderson,2006,includingotherarticlesinthatspecialissueinresponsetohisviewonanalytic
autoethnography). The point at which one lies on that continuum could also be in flux,
changingaccordingtotheparticularwritingprojectandthegoalsoftheresearcher.
Figure1.Autoethnographycontinuum,adaptedfromEllisandBochner(2000).
Some of the discussionsabouttheautoethnographiclandscapetendtobepolarizing,insisting
on support for one extreme of the continuum or the other , and sometimes even dismissing
alternativeviewpoints(againseeJournalofContemporaryEthnography, Volume 35, Number
4, 2006, for critiques of Andersons analytic autoethnography, some supportive with
qualifications,others dismissive and critical). In this regard, Denzin in the mentioned special
issuewrote:
Ellis, Bochner, Richardson, St. Pierre, Holman Jones, and their cohort want to
changetheworldbywritingfromtheirhearts...thewritersintheThirdChicago
School [the one that Anderson supports] want none of this . . . ethnography is a
[sic]notaninnocentpractice.Ourresearchpracticesareperformative,pedagogical
andpolitical.Throughourwritingandourtalk,weenacttheworldswestudy...
the pedagogical is always moral and political by enacting a way of seeing and
being, it challenges, contests, or endorses the official, hegemonic ways of seeing
andrepresentingtheother.(2006,p.423)
3/15
1/7/2015
Ellis and Bochner (2006) try to be more conciliatory, though they worry that analytic
autoethnography per Anderson is simply a genre of realist ethnography as opposed to an
alternativeethnographicpractice.Vryan(2006)ismoresupportiveofanalyticautoethnography,
butarguesagainstthelimitsthatAndersonplacedonitbyinsistingthatautoethnographymust
includedatafromothers.Vryanarguesthatthisshouldnotbeapreconditionfornamingones
practiceanalyticautoethnography.Instead,
WhatAndersondiscussesasAAisonewaytoemployselfstudyspecifically,itis
a way to conduct traditional ethnography with significantly enhanced researcher
visibility and reflexivity and a strong member role. I have no problem with the
researchstrategyhesuggestsIfindgreatvalueintraditionalethnographyandthe
versionofitheproposesbutIbelievewecanmoreusefullyestablishwhatAAis
andcanbe.Therearemanywaysanalysisviaselfstudymaybeaccomplished,and
the term analytic autoethnography should be applicable to all such possibilities.
(2006,p.406)
Further, he recommends that the necessity, value and feasibility of such data will vary
according to the specifics of a given project and the goals of its creator (p. 407). Continued
dialogue provokes us to interrogate the assumptions and processes that define this research
method. Ironically though, in defending our own understanding of autoethnography, the
dialogue is richest when method takes precedence over personalitywhen autoethnography
continuestoservethepurposesofdiverseauthors,tellingdifferenttalesindifferentways.
3.AVarietyofAutoethnographicTales
Autoethnographers explore a wide range of experiences, some purely personal and others in
relation with/to other participants of research projects. Professors have explored their
experienceswithintheacademyasinstructorsinadditiontohowtheynavigatetheclassroomas
minority faculty (Rodriguez, 2009), the development of the faculty identity in a Spanish
university (Hernandez, Sancho, Creus, & Montan, 2010, in this special issue), unique
experiences of academic culture (Pelias, 2003 Walford, 2004), experiences with teaching
qualitative research or other subject matter (Borochowitz, 2005), and spirituality in higher
education(Chang&Boyd,forthcoming,Cozart,2010).Emotionalexperiencesareparticularly
popular topics within which faculty explore their lived experience of specific phenomena
includingdepression(Jago,2002).Autoethnographershavealsoexploredtheirexperienceswith
grief(Lee,2006),dealingwithlossandillness(Ellis,1995Lee,2010)andotherareasrelated
tohealth.Jago(2002)dealswithdepressioninthecontextoftheacademy,eventhoughsomeof
the sources of her depression had to do with personal relationships outside of work. She is
concernedwithtellingthestoryofhowdepressionimpactedherexperienceatwork,including
how she cancelledclassesand eventually took a medical leave. Upon her return to work, she
writes about how others seemed to view her or how she thought they viewed her because of
havingsufferedwith/fromdepression.Itisastoryofvulnerabilityintheacademyrelatingtothe
tenureandpromotionprocessesaswellastorelationshipswithstudentsandcolleagues.
Variousautoethnographershaveexploredtheirownidentityanditsdevelopmentwithingiven
socioculturalcontexts,someofthembeingdirectlyrelatedtotheacademyasprofessors,others
in relation to conducting research in the field. Stories of coming out in the academy (Ettorre,
2010)andhowsexuality,particularlyhomosexuality,isexperiencedwithinthehighereducation
environment abound (see also Mitra [2010] and Mizzi [2010] in this special issue). Gender
identityisalsoexploredbyvariousautoethnographers,sometimesinrelationtootheraspectsof
their social identity, other times in isolation. For instance, masculinity (Drummond, 2010) in
4/15
1/7/2015
relationtosports,femininity(Averett,2009),andBlackmasculinity(Alexander,2004)serveas
examplesofexplorationsofidentityusingautoethnography.
Whiteprivilegehasalsobeenatopicofpersonalautoethnographicexplorationattheindividual
levelofanalysis(Boyd,2008Warren,2001)aswellaswithinadialogicframework(Toyosaki,
PensoneauConway, Wendt, & Leathers, 2009). Others have looked at their racial and/or
multiracialidentity(Gatson,2003Alexander,2004),includingtheimpactthishasonresearch
(Pompper,2010,inthisspecialissue)andonlifeintheacademy(Pathak,2010,inthisspecial
issue).
Otherautoethnographerslookatfamilydramaandrelationships,includingfatherabsenceand
family secrets (Jago, 2006 Poulos, 2009). Jagos autoethnography is both about her own
experiencesaswellasthoseofherparticipantswithabsentfathers.Dealingwithsuchstories
where one is both researcher and research subject along with other participants may help the
researcher to gain empathy with the respondents. Class consciousness is also a topic of
autoethnographicexploration(McIlveen,Beccaria,Preez,&Patton,2010).
These are a fraction of published autoethnographers as books, chapters, articles, and
dissertations.Formoreexamplesoffulllengthautoethnographies,seeChangs(2008)bookand
exploretheQualitativeInquiryjournalwhichpublishesautoethnographyarticles.
4.CollaborativeAutoethnography
Mostautoethnographiespublishedsofarhavebeentheworksofsoloauthors.However,more
autoethnographies coconducted by two or more researchers have been appearing in
publications.Forexample,Norris,whoinventedduoethnography,engagedanotherresearcher
to coconstruct their common and differing experiences as a gay and a straight male in a
dialogicformat(Sawyer&Norris,2004).Toyosakietal.(2009)exploretheirWhiteprivilegein
thesequentialprocessalsoresultinginacoconstructeddialogue.Unliketheduoethnography,
theirresearchprocess,selflabeledascommunityautoethnography,involvedfourindividuals.
Two of the articles published in this special issue are collaborative autoethnographies
(discussedlater).Theirstudiesinvolvedmorethantworesearchersandthefinalproductsdonot
takeonthedialogicalformat.Irrespectiveofthenumberofresearcherswhoparticipatedinthe
coconstruction process, their interactions produced a richer perspective than that emanating
from a solo researcher autoethnography. One researchers story stirred another researchers
memory ones probing question unsettled anothers assumptions ones action demanded
anothersreaction.Allcollaborativeautoethnographersasparticipantresearchersnotonlymade
decisionsabouttheirresearchprocessbutalsokeptthemselvesaccountabletoeachother.
Collaborativeautoethnographersadoptvariousmodelsofcollaboration.Somecollaboratefully
atallstagesofresearch process.Others collaborate at certain stages and work individually in
other stages of research. Whether collaboration is done fully or partially, cooperative data
collection is a key to collaborative autoethnography. In this stage, some research teams may
adopt a sequential model, in which one autoethnographer writes about his/her experience,
passes his/her writing to the next person who adds his/her story to the previous writing, and
passesitalongtothenextpersonforfurtheradditionofstories.Toyosakietal.(2009)followed
this model. Others use a concurrent model in which autoethnographers select topics for data
collection, independently collect autobiographic data, and gather to share and review their
stories and probe each other to extract further data. GeistMartin et al. (2010) in this issue
followed the concurrent format although they did not initially intend to do collaborative
autoethnography beyond sharing stories and looking for common themes as a conference
presentation. Methodological discussion of collaborative autoethnography is further advanced
5/15
1/7/2015
in our forthcoming book on this method. In this article, we will introduce a collaborative
autoethnographywehaveengagedinforthelast2years.
In our own work, we have adopted a full concurrent collaboration model in which we
collaboratedatallstagesofresearchdatacollection,analysis,andwriting.Thismodeloffull
andconcurrentcollaborationcouldbelogisticallychallengingbecausetheresearchteamneeds
to converge frequently to make collective decisions along the research process. Taking
advantageofthephysicalproximityascolleaguesatthesameuniversity,wesetouttoexplore
our common experiences as immigrant women of color in US higher education. We further
characterize our collaborative autoethnography as dialogical and ethnographic. The
collaboration process was dialogical because our independent selfexploration and collective
interaction were interlaced in the process. Figure 2 provides a visual representation of this
model.
Figure2.Collaborativeautoethnographyaconcurrentcollaborationmodel.
Webeganourcollaborationbycollectivelydecidingonthegeneraldirectionoftheresearchand
topics to explore for the beginning stage of data collection. This initial converging step was
followed by the diverging step of individually writing out our experiences. Whereas the
convergent step enabled us to shape the path of our research together, the divergent step
created the space for us to reflect and collect our autobiographic data free of one anothers
influences. Then, we shared our writings with each other, reviewed them, and posed probing
questionstoeachother.Atthisconvergentstep,weexposedourselvestoeachotherforfurther
explorationandcollectivelyconductedpreliminarydataanalysisonthebasisonwhich further
steps of data collection were decided. Our convergent sessions were audiotaped, which was
added to our pool of data. We iterated between individual (divergent) and collaborative
(convergent)activitiesatseveraltimesintheprocess.Thecollaborationprocesswasgrounded
on the ethnographic intent of understanding the interplay among the forces of our
developmental,personal,andsocioculturalidentities.
Ethnographic methods of data collection, analysis, and interpretation were employed as well.
Thedatawereanalyzedinathreephaseprocess:preliminaryexploratoryanalysis,opencoding,
and development of themes. For us, collaborative autoethnography has been a transformative
process whereby we were able to create community, advance scholarship, and become
empoweredtoeffectchangeatourinstitution.
5.ChallengesandOpportunitiesofAutoethnographyasMethod
6/15
1/7/2015
Autoethnographersrecognizeseveralchallengesandconcernsinusingautoethnographyastheir
chosenresearchmethod.Oneoftheprimaryconcernsdiscussedintheliteraturehastodowith
ethics.Specifically,researchershavediscussedthechallengeoftelling their storiesin light of
representingothersinthatstorysuchasstoriesofpain,hurt,betrayal,familydrama,andloss
thatmayincludeotheractorssuchasparents,siblings,andcolleagues.Ellis(2007)articleon
relational ethics assists autoethnographers in grappling with that kinds of concerns.Medford
(2006)alsodealswithissuesofethicsandaccountabilityinautoethnographicwork.
Anotherconcernhastodowithwriting about oneself while dealing with sensitive issues that
may cause selfdisclosure/exposure. Vulnerability is part of what makes reading
autoethnographic works so compelling, as researchers expose their pains, hurt, loss, grief,
heartbreaks,andotheremotionsexperiencedastheytravailthrougheventsintheirlives.Inthis
respect,ChathamCarpenter(2010,inthisspecialissue)explorestheethicaldilemmainvolved
inusingherownlifeexperienceswithaneatingdisorder.Shesharesthelessonsshelearnedon
how to protect oneself even as she urges autoethnographers to write through their pain.
Similarly,Pearce(2010,inthisspecialissue)discussedthecrisesandfreedomsinvolvedin
usingonesownlifeasthesourceofdataforresearch.Shewarnsoftheemotionalvulnerability
thatanautoethnographermayexperiencewhenresearchingherownlife.
Despite the concerns, researchers have found that autoethnography provides them with
opportunitiestostudysubjectareasthatwouldnotbeaseasilyandprofoundlyexpressedwith
other methods, including those discussed here (loss, pain, grief, depression, eating disorders,
familydrama,etc.).Whereassuchtopicscanbestudiedusingethnographic,phenomenological,
and other qualitative approaches, autoethnography allows researchers to dig deeply into their
ownexperience,includingtheattendantemotionsinwaysthatmaynotbepossibleiftheywere
being interviewed by someone else. Similarly, sharing ones own story of loss, pain, and the
like with research participants may create more empathy, which engenders more openness.
Chang(2008)resonateswiththissentimentwhenshediscussedthatthismethodisfriendlyto
researchersandreaders.Themethodnotonlyenablesresearcherstoaccesspersonallyintimate
datawitheasebutalsotoreachreaderswiththeirvulnerableopenness.Thisopenrelationship
groundedonemotionalandcognitiveresonancehaspotentialtoincreasetheunderstandingof
interconnectivitybetweenselfandothersacrosssocioculturaldifferencesandmotivatethem
toworktowardcrossculturalcoalitionbuilding(p.52).Thebroaderimplicationofthemethod
needstobecontinuouslyexamined.Webelievethatourcontributingauthorsaddtheirinsights
tothisendeavor.
6.IntroductiontotheSpecialIssueArticles
The authors in this special issue cover many of the areas that we have discussed in the
preceding pages. Here we introduce each article. We begin these introductions by looking at
issues of ethics in autoethnographic research. The authors writing about ethics look at
protecting themselves as the subject of their own research, even as they protect other
participantsinvolvedorimpliedintheirstories.
ThespecialissuestartswithanarticlebyAprilChathamCarpenter, Associate Professor of
CommunicationatUniversityofNorthernIowa,USA.ChathamCarpenter(2010)isconcerned
withprotectingtheresearcherastheobjectofherownstudy,asanextensionofthediscussions
regarding protecting participants in research with others. She argues that, especially when
writing about topics that are painful and potentially exposing, the researcher should write
through the pain, yet be careful to protect herself as well as those implicated in her story,
reminiscentoftheargumentsmadebyChang(2008),Ellis(2007),andTillmannHealy(1996).
7/15
1/7/2015
ThedifferencebetweenChathamCarpentersandTillmannHealysargumentsandthosefrom
ChangandEllisisthefocusondothyselfnoharm(ChathamCarpenter,2010).
Following ChathamCarpenter is an article by Carolyn Pearce, an independent scholar from
theUnitedKingdomwhowritesaboutthesenseofheightenedvulnerabilitythatawakenedin
herwhiledoingresearchwithgirlswhohadexperiencedthelossoftheirmother.Shediscusses
how this exposed her to renewed grief at the loss of her own mother, even though it had
happened almost 2 decades prior to the research study. She details how she used her
vulnerability and grief as part of the research material, recognizing that she could not
completelyseparateherexperiencefromthoseoftheyoungwomenshewasstudying.Pearce
(2010) then explains the lessons she learned through that research process on the crises and
freedomsofresearchingyourownlife.Whilesomemayarguethatherstudyofthegirlsisnot
autoethnographicinastrictsense,herapproachtoresearchhaspotentialtogrowintoaformof
collaborative autoethnography such as that which Smith (2005) conducted as she investigated
healingexperiencesofbraininjurypatientsthatincludedherself.
We move away from ethical concerns to an article by Robert Mizzi, a doctoral candidate at
YorkUniversity,Canada,whointroducesustomultivocalityinautoethnographicwork.Mizzi
(2010)definesmultivocalityasprovidingrepresentationalspaceintheautoethnographyforthe
plural and sometimes contradictory narrative voices located within the researcher. Using
vignettesfromhisexperiencesasateacherinKosovo,hedemonstrateshowmultivocalityhelps
toexposethevarietyofvoicesasthesevoicesrespondtoaneventincludingwherethevoices
demonstratetensionswithintheactorashethinksthroughandrespondstowhatishappeningto
him. Mizzi recommends multivocality as a tool towards decolonizing and enriching
autoethnographic practice. His article also delves into issues of identity and the vulnerability
that being the other can have, in this case, the otherness of the researcher himself living
within a foreign culture and in a work situation where being out as a gay man might be
disadvantageoustohiscontinuingcontract.
Rahul Mitra, a doctoral student at Purdue University, USA, follows with his article
interrogatinghowautoethnographycanbeusedtoexpandknowledgeasaformofscholarship.
Mitras (2010) incisivearticle arguesagainst what he regardsas thefalsedichotomybetween
the doing of research and being a researcher, observing instead that the two are dialectically
connected:doingislocatedwithintheethnographersverybeing.Mitraprovidesanexample
fromhisownresearchprocess.Hispiecealsoinvolvesissuesofidentity,specificallygayand
immigrantidentitywithintheUSacademy,demonstratinghowthesepositionalitiesofferedhim
astartingpointandstandpointforhisresearchtopicsandinterests.
ExpandingontheissuesofidentityinautoethnographicresearchpracticeisElenaMaydell,a
doctoral candidate at the Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Maydell (2010)
explicates her experiences as a researcher amongst Russian immigrants to New Zealand, and
realizes that her insider perspective as a member of the same immigrant group is the most
important tool in her repertoire as she interpreted and represented their stories. Being an
immigrantfromRussiaherselfmeantthatassheinterviewedparticipantsandinterpretedtheir
stories of identity formation, she was questioning and analyzing herself too thus,
autoethnography became an important process, one she described as being an invisible but
inseparablepartofmyresearchundertakings,boththeoreticalandempirical.Maydellrealized
the usefulness of finding an appropriate theoretical and methodological framework to use in
interrogatingandunderstandingtheconstructionofselfidentityforherselfandtheparticipants.
Donnalyn Pompper, Professor of Communication Studies at Temple University in
Philadelphia, USA, interrogates how her identity as a White woman academic impacted
8/15
1/7/2015
participants in her research studiesparticipants who were AfricanAmerican, Asian, and

Latina.Usingautoethnographicreflection,Pompper(2010)revisitedherearlierresearch study
toexploretheresearcherresearchedrelationshipasfarasracialmatchingisconcerned.Usinga
nonrepresentative sample, Pompper sought to find out how some of those participants felt
abouther.Shefoundoutthattheparticipantsdidnothaveproblemswithherraceandappeared
to appreciate having the opportunity to air their opinions about the field of Public Relations.
WhereasPompperdoesnotraisethis,itisalsopossibletheyfeltaconnectiontoherbyvirtueof
gender and common interest in Public Relations. The article demonstrates the need to be
cognizantofonessocialidentityinresearchingthoseconstructedasother,especiallyinview
oftheearlierissuesofcrisisofrepresentation(Lengel,1998Lincoln&Guba,2000).
In one of two articles focusing on motherhood, Patty Sotirin , Associate Professor of
CommunicationStudiesatMichiganTechnologicalUniversity,USA,explicatesthesimilarities
between evocative autoethnographic motherwriting and momoirs, that is, popular memoirs
aboutmotherhood.Sotirin(2010)arguesthat,whereastherearesomesimilaritiesbetweenthe
two genres, evocative autoethnographic writers should employ what she terms radical
specificity to think creatively about personal experiences and cultural relations beyond what
canbecommunicatedassharedexperience.
Next is an article by Fernando Hernandez, Juana Maria Sancho, Amalia Creus, and
Alejandra Montan (2010), education faculty at the University of Barcelona, Spain, who
providethefirstoftwoarticlesinthisspecialissuethatemploycollaborativeautoethnographic
methods.Hernandezandcolleaguesarticlefocusedonhowuniversityfacultyconstructedtheir
professional identities. The article recounts the individual writing process, as well as the
dialogicaldataanalysisusedintheiroriginalstudy.Issuessuchasrelationshipswithcolleagues,
theirearlyexperiencesasstudents,thebeginningoftheirprofessionalcareersasfaculty,andthe
effect of gender on all these experiences are discussed as contributing to their professional
identity. Hernandez and colleagues then engage in discussions on the process and the lessons
learnedinthecollaborativeautoethnographicresearchprocess:threelessonsthatarewellworth
theread.
The article by Patricia GeistMartin and colleagues, communication studies scholars from
variousinstitutionsintheUS,focusonmotherhoodstorieseithertheirexperiencesasmothers,
as children, or a juxtaposition of both. Professor GeistMartin (San Deigo State University),
Lisa Gates (Associate Professor, San Diego Christian University), Liesbeth Weiring
(Instructor, Cuyamaca College), Professor Erika Kirby (Creighton University), Renee
Houston(AssociateProfessor,UniversityofPugetSound),AnnLillyandJuanMorenoboth
students at San Diego State University, offered an excellent example of collaborative
autoethnographic practice. Their collaborative autoethnography started with individual
narratives about mothering and/or being mothered, which they presented at a conference.
Duringthatpresentation,theybegan,andcontinuedafterwards,tolookforcommonthemesand
latertointerrogatetheirparticipationinhegemonicconstructionsofmotherhoodusingfeminist
critic.Thearticledemonstratesthebenefitsofcollaborativeautoethnographicmethodinhelping
researchers to explore the depth of individual and shared experiences, such that sharing the
storiesunearthedinsightsintomotheringthatnoonestoryinisolationcouldhavedone.
To conclude this special issue, Archana Pathak (2010), an instructor in the Women Studies
department at Virginia Commonwealth University, USA, examines how autoethnography
combined with postcolonial theory can aid researchers in disrupting the colonial enterprise.
Pathaksessayprovokesthereadertouseautoethnographytofurtherasocialjusticeagendain
the academy. It provides an excellent parting shot as she uses her own experience in the
academyinrelationtoraceherownandthatofherstudentsandcolleaguesandhowherrace
9/15
1/7/2015
was sometimes used to judge her abilities and whom she could advise. Pathak also discusses
howdiscoveringautoethnographyhelpedhertofinallytellthestoriesthatshehadbeenlonging
to read/hear, stories that reflected her own experience, even as she struggled with whether
tellingsuchstoriescouldreallyberesearchandnotmerelymesearch.
7.ImplicationsforFutureResearchPractice
Asselffocusedwritingsgainmorerecognitionasscholarlyendeavor,wecanonlyimaginethat
productionofautoethnographywillincreasebecausetheeasyaccesstothesourceofdatawill
encouragescholarsunderpressureofpublishorperishtousetheirownlivesassourceofdata
for research. As scholars continue to engage in scholarship that blurs art and science, we
imaginethatautoethnographersassocialscientistswillfacemorepressuretodefendourefforts
convergingthesetraditionallydichotomouselementsartandscience.Autoethnographersmay
respondtothepressureinthreedifferentways.
First,autoethnographersmaycontinuetorideon the backofpostmodern defiance against the
conventionaldichotomizationbetweenscienceandart.Whethertheypositionthemselvescloser
totheethnographypoleortotheautobiographypoleintheautoethnographycontinuum
presented in Figure 1, they will continue to mix scientific inquiry and selfexploration and to
express the mixture in descriptiverealistic, analyticalinterpretive, confessionalemotive, or
imaginativecreative writing. The descriptiverealistic and analyticalinterpretive writing is
more supported by the traditional scientific approach whereas the confessionalemotive and
imaginativecreative writing is closer to artistic presentation. In the spirit of transcending the
dichotomization, it is possible for autoethnographers to mix different styles of writing and
presentationsofinquiryinthefinalproductsoftheirautoethnographicwritings.
Second,autoethnographersmayswingbacktoamoreconventionalscientificinquiryinreaction
totheeverincreasingproduction of selfintrospection that lacks methodological transparency.
Although the voice of defense for selfexploration as part of scientific inquiry has become
stronger,thecommunityofscientificinquiryisnotlikelytodisappearinthefaceofgrowing
interestinautoethnography.Theirloveaffairwithsystematicmethodologymaydemandmore
methodological transparency than what most autoethnographies have offered in confessional
evocative or imaginativecreative writings. Although Chang (2008), Anderson (2006) and
othersontheanalyticalendofthecontinuumstandincontrasttoEllis(2004),Denzin (2006)
andthoseonthemoreevocativeendintermsofthedefenseofthesystematicmethodologyof
autoethnography, their efforts to explain the research process of autoethnography have been
instructive for novice autoethnographers in pursuit of this new methodological adventure. In
addition,suchapologiahashelpedtodefendautoethnographyasalegitimateresearchmethod.
Itisunlikelythatautoethnographerswillfullysuccumbtothepressuretoturntheirwritinginto
dryacademicdiscourse.However,itispossiblethatmoreandmoreautoethnographerswould
presenttheirmethodologicaldiscussionaspartoftheirautoethnographicproductespeciallyin
thesesanddissertations.
Third,autoethnographersmayconstructautoethnographycollectivelyaswediscussedearlierin
the section on collaborative autoethnography. Collaborative interrogation could enable
researcherstoexploreselfinthepresenceofotherstogainacollectiveunderstandingoftheir
sharedexperiences.Criticalprobingofoneanother,avitalstepinthecollaborativeprocess,can
potentiallykeepthemfromsettlingtoosoonintheirowngroveofperspectivesandevokenew
insightsbeyondtheirown.Withdifferentmodelsofcollaborationfullorpartial,sequentialor
concurrentmoreautoethnographersmayenterintoselfexplorationwithothers.
Howautoethnographywilldevelopwithinthenextdecadedependsonhowwewillrespondto
10/15
1/7/2015
the changing trend of scholarship and the fate of postmodernism. With the opportunities and
challenges that this unique and powerful methodological tool presents to social scientists,
researchers are called to examine this methodology with critical eyes so that it enhances the
understandingofhumanityselfinsocialculturalcontext.Contributorstothisspecialissueare
doing precisely that and we as editors and fellow autoethnographers are grateful for their
efforts.
References
Anderson,L.(2006).Analyticautoethnography.JournalofContempoaryEthnography,35(4),
373395.
Alexander,B.K.(2004).Passing,culturalperformance,andindividualagency:Performative
reflectionsonBlackmasculineidentity.CulturalStudies/CriticalMethodologies,4(3),
377404.
Averett,P.(2009).Thesearchforwonderwoman.Affilia,24(4),360368.
Borochowitz,D.Y.(2005).Teachingaqualitativeresearchseminaronsensitiveissues.
QualitativeSocialWork,4(3),347362.
Boyd,D.(2008).AutoethnographyasatoolfortransformativelearningaboutWhiteprivilege.
JournalofTransformativeEducation,6(3),212225.
ChathamCarpenter,A.(2010).Dothyselfnoharm:Protectingourselvesas
autoethnographers.JournalofResearchPractice,6(1),ArticleM1.RetrievedAugust17,
2010,fromhttp://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/213/183
Chang,H.(1992).Adolescentlifeandethos:AnethnographyofaUShighschool.London:
Falmer.
Chang,H.(2007).Autoethnography:Raisingculturalawarenessofselfandothers.In.G.
Walford(Ed.),Methodolgoicaldevelopmentsinethnography(Studiesineducational
ethnography,Volume12,pp.201221).Boston:Elsevier.
Chang,H.(2008).Autoethnographyasmethod.WalnutCreek,CA:LeftCoast.
Chang,H.,Hermandez,K.C.,&Ngunjiri,F.(Forthcoming).Collaborativeautoethnography.
WalnutCreek,CA:LeftCoast.
Chang,H.,&Boyd,D.(Ed.).(Forthcoming).Spiritualityinhighereducation.WalnutCreek,
CA:LeftCoast.
Cozart,S.C.(2010).Whenthespiritshowsup:Anautoethnographyofspiritualreconciliation
withtheacademy.EducationalStudies,46(2),250269.
Denzin,N.(2006).Analyticautoethnography,ordjvualloveragain.Journalof
ContempoaryEthnography,35(4),419428.
Drummond,M.(2010).Thenatural.MenandMasculinities,12(3),374389.
Ellis,C.(1995).Finalnegotiation:Astoryoflove,loss,andchronicillness.Philadelphia:
TempleUniversityPress.
Ellis,C.(2004).TheethnographicI:Amethodologicalnovelaboutautoethnography.Walnut
11/15
1/7/2015
Creek,CA:AltaMira.
Ellis,C.(2007).Tellingsecrets,revealinglives:Relationalethicsinresearchwithintimate
others.QualitativeInquiry,13(1),329.
Ellis,C.(2009).Revision:Autoethnographicreflectionsonlifeandwork.WalnutCreek,CA:
LeftCoast.
Ellis,C.,&Bochner,A.P.(2000).Autoethnography,personalnarrative,andpersonal
reflexivity.InN.K.Denzin&Y.S.Lincoln(Eds.),Handbookofqualitativeresearch
(2nded.,pp.733768).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Ellis,C.,&Bochner,A.P.(2006).Analyzinganalyticalautoethnography.Journalof
ContemporaryEthnography,35(4),429449.
Ettorre,E.(2010).Nuns,dykes,drugsandgenderedbodies:Anautoethnographyofalesbian
feministsjourneythroughgoodtimesociology.Sexualities,13(3),295315.
Gatson,S.N.(2003).Onbeingamorphous:Autoethnography,genealogy,andamultiracial
identity.QualitativeInquiry,9(1),2048.
GeistMartin,P.,Gates,L.,Wiering,L.,Kirby,E.,Houston,R.,Lilly,A.,&Moreno,J.
(2010).Exemplifyingcollaborativeautoethnographicpracticeviasharedstoriesof
mothering.JournalofResearchPractice,6(1),ArticleM8.RetrievedAugust31,2010,
fromhttp://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/209/187
Hernandez,K.C.(2005).Motivationincontext:Anexaminationoffactorsthatfoster
engagementandachievementamongAfricanAmericanandAfricanCaribbeanhigh
schoolstudents(Doctoraldissertation,TempleUniversity,USA,2005).Dissertation
AbstractsInternational,65(10A),3690.(UMINo.3151006)
Hernandez,K.C.(2006).UndertheAfrotree:Perceptionsoftheschoolrelatedexperiencesof
BritishVirginIslandshighschoolstudents.InK.Mutua&C.Sunal(Eds.),
Crosscurrentsandcrosscuttingthemes:ResearchoneducationinAfrica,theCaribbean,
andtheMiddleEast(VolumeIII).Greenwich,CT:InfoAge.
Hernandez,F.,Sancho,J.M.,Creus,A.,&Montan,A.(2010),Becominguniversity
scholars:Insideprofessionalautoethnographies.JournalofResearchPractice,6(1),
ArticleM7.RetrievedAugust31,2010,from
Holt,N.I.(2003).Representation,legitimation,andautoethnography:Anautoethnographic
writingstory.InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods,2(1),1828.Retrieved
August18,2010,from
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/view/4529/3660
Jago,B.J.(2002).Chroniclinganacademicdepression.JournalofContemporary
Ethnography,31(6),729757.
Jago,B.J.(2006).Aprimaryactofimagination.QualitativeInquiry,12(2),398426.
Karra,N.,&Phillips,N.(2008).Researchingbackhome.OrganizationalResearch
Methods,11(3),541561.
Lee,K.V.(2006).Afugueaboutgrief.QualitativeInquiry,12(6),11541159.
12/15
1/7/2015
Lee,K.V.(2010).Anautoethnography:Musictherapyafterlasereyesurgery.Qualitative
Inquiry,16(4),244248.
Leitch,R.(2006).Outsidethespoondrawer,nakedandskinlessinsearchofmyprofessional
esteem.QualitativeInquiry,12(2),353364.
Lengel,L.B.(1998).Researchingthe"other",transformingourselves:Methodological
considerationsoffeministethnography.JournalofCommunicationInquiry,22(3),229
250.
Lincoln,Y.S.,&Guba,E.G.(2000).Paradigmaticcontroversies,contradictions,and
emergingconfluences.InN.K.Denzin&Y.S.lincoln(Eds.),Handbookofqualitative
research(2nded.,pp.163188).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Maydell,E.(2010).Methodologicalandanalyticaldilemmasinautoethnographicresearch.
JournalofResearchPractice,6(1),ArticleM5.RetrievedAugust31,2010,from
McIlveen,P.,Beccaria,G.,Preez,J.du,&Patton,W.(2010,May17).Autoethnographyin
vocationalpsychology:Wearingyourclassonyoursleeve.JournalofCareer
Development.Publishedonlinebeforeprint.
Medford,K.(2006).CaughtwithafakeID.QualitativeInquiry,12(5),853864.
Mitra,R.(2010).Doingethnography,beinganethnographer:Theautoethnographicresearch
processandI.JournalofResearchPractice,6(1),ArticleM4.RetrievedAugust17,
2010,fromhttp://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/184/182/
Mizzi,R.(2010).Unravelingresearchersubjectivitythroughmultivocalityin
autoethnography.JournalofResearchPractice,6(1),ArticleM3.RetrievedAugust18,
2010,fromhttp://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/201/185
Ngunjiri,F.W.(2007).PaintingacounternarrativeofAfricanwomanhood:Reflectionson
howmyresearchtransformedme.JournalofResearchPractice,3(1),ArticleM4.
RetrievedAugust18,2010,fromhttp://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/53/76
Ngunjiri,F.W.(2010).Women'sspiritualleadershipinAfrica:Temperedradicalsand
criticalservantleaders.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
Pathak,A.A.(2010).Openingmyvoice,claimingmyspace:Theorizingthepossibilitiesof
postcolonialapproachestoautoethnography.JournalofResearchPractice,6(1),Article
M10,August31,2010,fromhttp://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/231/191
Pearce,C.(2010).Thecrisesandfreedomsofresearchingyourownlife.JournalofResearch
Practice,6(1),ArticleM2.Retrievedfrom
Pelias,R.J.(2003).Theacademictourist:Anautoethnography.QualitativeInquiry,9(3),369
373.
Pompper,D.(2010).Researcherresearcheddifference:Adaptinganautoethnographic
approachforaddressingtheracialmatchingissue.JournalofResearchPractice,6(1),
ArticleM6.RetrievedAugust17,2010,from
13/15
1/7/2015
Poulos,C.N.(2009).Accidentalethnography:Aninquiryintofamilysecrecy.WalnutCreek,
CA:LeftCoast.
ReedDanahay,D.E.(Ed.)(1997).Auto/ethnography:Rewritingtheselfandthesocial.
Oxford,UK:Berg.
Rodriguez,D.(2009).Theusualsuspect:NegotiatingWhitestudentresistanceandteacher
authorityinapredominantlyWhiteclassroom.CulturalStudies/CriticalMethodologies,
9(4),483508.
Salzman,P.C.(2002).Onreflexivity.AmericanAnthropologist,104(3),805813.
Sawyer,R.,&Norris,J.(2004).Nullandhiddencurriculaofsexualorientation:Adialogueon
thecurreresoftheabsentpresenceandthepresentabsence.InL.Coia,M.Birch,N.J.
Brooks,E.Heilman,S.Mayer,A.Mountain,&P.Pritchard(Eds.),Democratic
responsesinaneraofstandardization(pp.139159).Troy,NY:EducatorsInternational.
Smith,C.(2005).Epistemologicalintimacy:Amovetoautoethnography.International
JournalofQualitativeMethods,4(2),Article6.RetrievedAugust18,2010,from
http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/4_2/HTML/smith.htm
Sotirin,P.(2010).Autoethnographicmotherwriting:Advocatingradicalspecificity.Journal
ofResearchPractice,6(1),ArticleM9.RetrievedAugust31,2010,from
Sparkes,A.C.(2002).Autoethnography:Selfindulgenceorsomethingmore?InA.Bochner
&C.Ellis(Eds.),Ethnographicallyspeaking:Autoethnography,literature,and
aesthetics(pp.209232).WalnutCreek,CA:AltaMira.
TillmannHealy,L.M.(1996).Asecretlifeinacultureofthinness:Reflectionsonbody,food,
andbulimia.InC.Ellis&A.P.Bochner(Eds.),Composingethnography:Altenative
formsofqualitativewriting(pp.76108).WalnutCreek,CA:AltaMira.
Toyosaki,S.,PensoneauConway,S.L.,Wendt,N.A.,&Leathers,K.(2009).Community
autoethnography:CompilingthepersonalandresituatingWhiteness.Cultural
Studies/CriticalMethodologies,9(1),5683.
Vryan,K.D.(2006).Expandinganalyticautoethnographyandenhancingitspotential.Journal
ofContemporaryEthnography,35(4),405409.
Walford,G.(2004).Findingthelimits:AutoethnographyandbeinganOxfordUniversity
Proctor.QualitativeResearch,4(3),403417.
Warren,J.T.(2001).Absenceforwhom?AnautoethnographyofWhitesubjectivity.Cultural
Studies/CriticalMethodologies,1(1),3649.
Wolcott,H.(2004).Theethnographicautobiography.Auto/Biography,12,93106.
Received28February2010|Accepted29July2010|Published23August2010
Copyright2010JournalofResearchPracticeandtheauthors
14/15
1/7/2015
Vol.2,2006(2.1,2.2)
Vol.6,2010(6.1,6.2)
Vol.10,2014(10.1,10.2)
ISSUENAVIGATION
Vol.1,2005(1.1,1.2)
Vol.5,2009(5.1,5.2)
Vol.9,2013(9.1,9.2)
Vol.3,2007(3.1,3.2)
Vol.7,2011(7.1,7.2)
Vol.11,2015(11.1)
Vol.4,2008(4.1,4.2)
Vol.8,2012(8.1,8.2)
ALLISSUES
SPECIALISSUES
JRPCONCEPTHIERARCHY|SUBMITARTICLE|PROPOSESPECIALISSUE|SPONSOR|CONTACT
15/15

Living Autoethnography - Connecting Life and Research - Ngunjiri - Journal of Research Practice

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Living Autoethnography - Connecting Life and Research - Ngunjiri - Journal of Research Practice

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1/7/2015

About Announcements CurrentIssue PastIssues Contributors Forum

participants in her research studiesparticipants who were AfricanAmerican, Asian, and

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi