Analytic Autoethnography

Abstract

Autoethnography has recently become a popular form of qualitative research. The current discourse on this genre of research refers almost exclusively to “evocative autoethnography” that draws upon postmodern sensibilities and whose advocates distance themselves from realist and analytic ethnographic traditions. The dominance of evocative autoethnography has obscured recognition of the compatibility of autoethnographic research with more traditional ethnographic practices. The author proposes the term analytic autoethnography to refer to research in which the researcher is (1) a full member in the research group or setting, (2) visible as such a member in published texts, and (3) committed to developing theoretical understandings of broader social phenomena. After briefly tracing the history of proto-autoethnographic research among realist ethnographers, the author proposes five key features of analytic autoethnography. He concludes with a consideration of the advantages and limitations of this genre of qualitative research.

The Researcher as Experimental Subject: Using Self-Experimentation to Access Experiences, Understand Social Phenomena, and Stimulate Reflexivity

“…Autoethnography is a self-referential form of qualitative analysis wherein a researcher becomes embedded in a particular social context and reports on the scope of his or her subjective experiences and self-transformations (Anderson, 2006). Thus, the primary data of autoethnographers are autobiographical first-person self-reflections (Chang, 2008).…”

“Dear International Guests and Friends of the Icelandic Horse”: Experience, Meaning and Belonging at a Niche Sporting Event

“…In addition to more objective elements such as the time of day, density of crowd and activities in the programme of events, we included our own subjective impressions. Borrowing from analytic autoethnographic traditions (Anderson, 2006) we wanted to include our personal reflections on the event in order to add to the richness of our data and to contribute a more individual and intimate perspective on event experiences. Autoethnography is a method of linking personal stories and experiences to wider social and cultural issues (see Anderson, 2006;Coghlan, 2012;Dashper, 2013).…”

“…Borrowing from analytic autoethnographic traditions (Anderson, 2006) we wanted to include our personal reflections on the event in order to add to the richness of our data and to contribute a more individual and intimate perspective on event experiences. Autoethnography is a method of linking personal stories and experiences to wider social and cultural issues (see Anderson, 2006;Coghlan, 2012;Dashper, 2013). Personal experiences are valuable sources of data that can help to capture the nuances of event experiences 'from the inside' which can then contribute to understanding the lived realities of events from different perspectives (Coghlan & Filo, 2013;Dashper, 2015).…”

Fieldwork, Biography and Emotion

“…Anderson (2006) details five key principles of analytic autoethnography: (1) 'complete member researcher' -the researcher is a complete participatory member of the group studied, now or in the past; (2) 'analytic reflexivity' -the researcher must engage in 'self-conscious introspection guided by a desire to better understand both self and others ' (2006: 382); (3) 'visibility of researcher in the text' -simply put, the autoethnographer must be a visible presence in their textual output; (4) 'dialogue beyond the self' -autoethnography should involve participants alongside the researcher; and (5), 'a commitment to an analytical agenda' -here Anderson is most explicit, the above combine to provide 'a broad set of data-transcending practices that are directed toward theoretical development, refinement, and extension ' (2006: 387 There is a real danger that, in subjectively focusing in too much upon one's self -in terms of history and/or emotive processes -one disconnects themselves from their wider social setting.…”

“…The first provides a brief introductory overview of the relationship between criminology and 'the self'. Here, as a precursor to what follows, an important distinction is made between emotive and analytic autoethnography in that whilst the former is primarily concerned with a researcher's subjective life experiences, the latter directs its attention more towards the wider social context in which they are set (Anderson, 2006). Secondly I refer to my fieldwork and the ways in which it was both helped and hindered by my biography.…”