Autoethnography: accept, revise, reject? An evaluative self reflects

Abstract

In this article I offer some reflections of how my evaluative self goes about passing judgment on different kinds of autoethnography. I begin by making distinctions between the autobiographical and the autoethnographic before raising questions about whether or not self-reflexive accounts of the fieldwork process can claim the title of autoethnography. Following this, I consider the lists of criteria others have made available to my evaluative self for judging analytic, evocative and performance autoethnographies. Having acknowledged the dangers and possibilities of such lists attention then turns to how my evaluative self might go about judging a selection of autoethnographies published in Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health using multiple criteria from a variety of sources. Rather than being purely a cognitive, linear and rational act the process described is messy, tentative, contingent, and deeply embodied as my evaluative self feels its way towards making certain kinds of judgment calls over others.

Transformativni potencijal autoetnografije u poučavanju kvalitativnih metoda istraživanja u studiju pedagogije

“…Autoetnografija je metoda istraživanja i vrsta teksta (Chang, 2008) koja je tijekom protekla dva desetljeća stekla popularnost u velikome broju disciplina, o čemu svjedoče brojne specijalizirane publikacije posvećene njenim različitim inačicama i kontekstima primjene (Sparkes, 2020). Ellis i Bocher, autorica i autor koji su desetljeća svog akademskog rada posvetili upravo autoetnografiji, određuju je kao "autobiografiju koja samosvjesno istražuje interakciju introspektivnog, osobno angažiranog pojedinca i kulturnih deskripcija posredovanih putem jezika, povijesti i etnografskih pojašnjenja" (2000, 742).…”

Joint Recommendations on Reporting Empirical Research in Outdoor, Experiential, Environmental, and Adventure Education Journals

“…(Autoethnography and autobiography have unique stylistic considerations. See, for example, Sparkes, 2020.) The requirement of transparency places a heavy burden on authors to both reveal and explain the logic of their inquiry as it proceeded, including how their own perspective and judgments shaped its evolution.…”

Making a Spectacle of Oneself in the Academy Using the H-Index: From Becoming an Artificial Person to Laughing at Absurdities

“…This raises questions about how academics interpret and respond to this incitement to make a spectacle of themselves and how they feel emotionally about doing so in the process. Autoethnographic work that draws on personal experience to purposefully comment on and critique cultural practices, embrace vulnerability with a purpose, and create a reciprocal relationship with the audience in the hope of compelling a response would seem to be one way to address such questions (Adams & Herrmann, 2020;Holman Jones et al, 2013;Sparkes, 2020). This said, some consideration first needs to be given as to whether or not we need another autoethnography from inside the university and for what purpose.…”