Nope, this isn’t about geography. There is a relationship to autobiography. In this instance autoethnography, which is quite new to me. I pondered about including something not quite mainstream in yesterday’s research theory session. Would the students think this a valid approach to research or not? The standpoint taken, admitting I did not know this in depth. I would present the basics to them, and be very interested in their thoughts.
Before doing that they had introductions to autobiography and memoir. Posing the question, could we trust those as the truth? Well, a big discussion followed about recognising truthfulness in what we read. Some thought the Diary of Anne Frank is autobiography. Others said no, this is a memoir. Three decided diary writing is personal reflections. The truth is how the writer perceives that to be. I threw in, what about multiple realities? Saying, we have many dimensions to our inner life. That reality isn’t so clear cut. Reality can be fuzzy because we depend upon memory, feelings, and perceptions of particular events. That caused a flurry of discussion, which rapidly became a fast flowing exchange of memories. A good point at which to say, “Okay. Let’s move on to authoethenography.”
So what is this and could it be something people do in online journals? Auto (self), ethno (cultural), the self in culture using one’s own life to create a personal narrative. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? This is a highly personalised style of writing. Researching self is the focus. Is that likely to be rigorous in terms of validity? Some say it is not others can justify what the rigor should be.
Lived experience is the focus of qualitative research. The main reason why I’m so tuned into these approaches. Lived experience becomes textual because we have language. And it is through language and writing we bring structure to the experiences of life. If all experience is text, that can be analysed in the dimensions of its behavioural, social, and cultural contexts.
Although autoethnography has been around for twenty years, traditional researchers view this as self-indulgent, even to suggesting it’s narcissistic. This is not strictly speaking an autobiography or a memoir. It does though require a good understanding of the reflective process.
Traditionally when doing research the self is excluded. Qualitative researchers interpret the life world of others. So where does that place the person in terms of researching self? Are there clear cut differences between autobiography, memoir, and autoethnography? Coming to this initially, the lines appeared to be somewhat blurred.
“Autoethnography is an autobiographical genre of writing and research that displays multiple layers of consciousness, connecting the personal to the cultural. Back and forth ethnographers gaze, first through an ethnographic wide-angle lens, focussing outward on social and cultural aspects of their personal experience; then, they look inward, exposing a vulnerable self that is moved by and may move through, refract, and resist cultural interpretations.” (Ellis & Bochner 2001)
Women can be subversive when writing. Many women have long resisted imposed cultural interpretations of how we should be. We find that in novels and poetry. Kate Chopin’s novel The Awakening, published in 1899, was vilified. I can’t say for certain if she consciously set out to be subversive. So possibly, Chopin unconsciously dissented when writing about the reality of a woman’s deep feelings. Her character Edna Pontellier, felt trapped in a mundane passionless marriage, her affair unconsummated. Regardless of that latter fact, Chopin’s book caused moral outrage. She was socially ostracised, silenced, and never published another novel.
This brings me to Anaïs Nin’s journals. Those are distinctly autobiographical veering more in the direction of autoethnography, than The Diary of Anne Frank. I’m treading to some extent upon swampy ground here. My thoughts are fluid, likely to deepen and change, as I discover more about autoethnography.
So far, auto-ethnographic accounts emerge as personal reflections of a multi-facetted inner life. Unlike the usual approaches to research, there is no single testable proposition. The researcher and the data is a unified embodied life. This is an examined life using reflective journal writing, ethnographic analysis and narrative reporting. In that respect veers away from standing on its own as an autobiography or a memoir. Which although related to those, the subtle differences are clearer.
As for the students, they enjoyed being part of my learning process, as I do of theirs. Sharing learning together generated a terrific buzz.
Reference
Ellis C.E., Bochner A.P., (2001) Ethnographically Speaking: Autoethnography, Literature and Aesthetics, Ethnographic Alternatives Series, AltaMira Press, USA.
Before doing that they had introductions to autobiography and memoir. Posing the question, could we trust those as the truth? Well, a big discussion followed about recognising truthfulness in what we read. Some thought the Diary of Anne Frank is autobiography. Others said no, this is a memoir. Three decided diary writing is personal reflections. The truth is how the writer perceives that to be. I threw in, what about multiple realities? Saying, we have many dimensions to our inner life. That reality isn’t so clear cut. Reality can be fuzzy because we depend upon memory, feelings, and perceptions of particular events. That caused a flurry of discussion, which rapidly became a fast flowing exchange of memories. A good point at which to say, “Okay. Let’s move on to authoethenography.”
So what is this and could it be something people do in online journals? Auto (self), ethno (cultural), the self in culture using one’s own life to create a personal narrative. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? This is a highly personalised style of writing. Researching self is the focus. Is that likely to be rigorous in terms of validity? Some say it is not others can justify what the rigor should be.
Lived experience is the focus of qualitative research. The main reason why I’m so tuned into these approaches. Lived experience becomes textual because we have language. And it is through language and writing we bring structure to the experiences of life. If all experience is text, that can be analysed in the dimensions of its behavioural, social, and cultural contexts.
Although autoethnography has been around for twenty years, traditional researchers view this as self-indulgent, even to suggesting it’s narcissistic. This is not strictly speaking an autobiography or a memoir. It does though require a good understanding of the reflective process.
Traditionally when doing research the self is excluded. Qualitative researchers interpret the life world of others. So where does that place the person in terms of researching self? Are there clear cut differences between autobiography, memoir, and autoethnography? Coming to this initially, the lines appeared to be somewhat blurred.
“Autoethnography is an autobiographical genre of writing and research that displays multiple layers of consciousness, connecting the personal to the cultural. Back and forth ethnographers gaze, first through an ethnographic wide-angle lens, focussing outward on social and cultural aspects of their personal experience; then, they look inward, exposing a vulnerable self that is moved by and may move through, refract, and resist cultural interpretations.” (Ellis & Bochner 2001)
Women can be subversive when writing. Many women have long resisted imposed cultural interpretations of how we should be. We find that in novels and poetry. Kate Chopin’s novel The Awakening, published in 1899, was vilified. I can’t say for certain if she consciously set out to be subversive. So possibly, Chopin unconsciously dissented when writing about the reality of a woman’s deep feelings. Her character Edna Pontellier, felt trapped in a mundane passionless marriage, her affair unconsummated. Regardless of that latter fact, Chopin’s book caused moral outrage. She was socially ostracised, silenced, and never published another novel.
This brings me to Anaïs Nin’s journals. Those are distinctly autobiographical veering more in the direction of autoethnography, than The Diary of Anne Frank. I’m treading to some extent upon swampy ground here. My thoughts are fluid, likely to deepen and change, as I discover more about autoethnography.
So far, auto-ethnographic accounts emerge as personal reflections of a multi-facetted inner life. Unlike the usual approaches to research, there is no single testable proposition. The researcher and the data is a unified embodied life. This is an examined life using reflective journal writing, ethnographic analysis and narrative reporting. In that respect veers away from standing on its own as an autobiography or a memoir. Which although related to those, the subtle differences are clearer.
As for the students, they enjoyed being part of my learning process, as I do of theirs. Sharing learning together generated a terrific buzz.
Reference
Ellis C.E., Bochner A.P., (2001) Ethnographically Speaking: Autoethnography, Literature and Aesthetics, Ethnographic Alternatives Series, AltaMira Press, USA.
1 comment:
Listening to Cool Jazz above and reading through your insightful and interesting post here, I felt the old familiar kick of passion for the discussion and theory.
Thanks for posting this.
Post a Comment