Marechal, Garance. “Autoethnography.” InEncyclopedia of Case Study Research, edited by Albert J. Mills, Gabrielle Durepos and Elden Wiebe, 44-46. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 2010.
· Abstract:
Autoethnography is defined as a form of research in which the researcher focuses on self observation and reflexive investigation. This is done in the context of ethnographic work, in which the researcher considers a group which he/she belongs to as a native, member, or participant. As anthropology has a renewed interest in personal narrative, life history, and autobiography, new conceptions of self-identity have been found. Three conditions of self include “self as representative subject”, “self as autonomous subject”, and “other as autonomous self” (p. 2). Systematic, self-conscious introspection where the researcher plays a dual role, both in and out of the community, the “ultimate” participant. The researchers subjective experience can be the central focus. Autoethography is not committed to generalization, however, it reveals cultural influences and broader social relevance, possibly connecting to local action or a larger global context.
· Notations:
This encyclopedia entry gives a general understanding of autoethography to the reader in the context of case study research. Autoethnography is a method that can be undertaken to give insight into the perspective of an individual, which can then be understood in larger social implications as an identity relating to a specific group, whether it be Muslim, Asian, Native, or Black, etc. American. It may not be generalizable, but the perspective can be utilized to draw cultural implications in experience, which others may feel they can relate to, or at least understand. Personal experiences are presented as an expression of human life, which the reader takes to understand that autoethnography is about more than the researcher; it also delves into the human experience as a site for cultural and political dialogue.
Butz, David, and Besio, Kathryn. “Autoethnography.” Geography Compass 3, no. 5 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., September 2009: 1660–1674.
· Abstract:
Identity involves presenting to others as well as oneself, and autoethography is doing so in order to place the self in social contexts. These trans-cultural communications allow authors to scrutinize, publicize, and reflexively rework their understanding. The “crisis of representation” stems from the ethnographic constraints of power and subjectivity of colonial perspectives and asymmetries of power speaking for the “other”. Autoethnogarphy seeks to destabilize this ethnographic authority through critical reflexivity. The ethnographic “I” is the primary research subject. Autoethnography “groups together a variety of existing self-representation practices” (p. 1664). The five categories of autoethnography include autoethnography as personal narrative, autoethography as reflexive or narrative ethnography, autoethnography from below, indigenous ethnography, and insider research. These categories all collapse the conventional distance between researchers and research subjects.
· Notations:
One of the authors is David Butz, a professor and the director of the graduate program in the department of geography at Brock University. Since 1985, he has been conducting community-level research in northern Pakistan. The other author is Kathryn Besio who is an associate professor at the University of Hawai’i at Hilo. She is a social cultural geographer interested in the violent legacies of colonialism in inequalities of class, gender, and ethnic privilege. Both authors deal with identity in places that seek to shift away from “objective” separations between the research and researcher. The audience of this source gain a more in-depth understanding of why autoethnography emerged as a method, as well as five categories that can be used to understand different types of autoethnographic research. Autoethnography as personal narrative, my research method, utilizes first-person forms of writing (short stories, poetry, fiction, etc.) to blur the distinctions in emotion, representation, and performance (p. 166).