Eng 101- Autoethnography by Chang

8/12/2019 Eng 101- Autoethnography by Chang

1/25

1

Title: Autoethnography as Method

Subtitle: Raising Cultural Consciousness of Self and Others

Author: Heewon Chang, Ph. D.

Institution: astern !ni"ersity

Position: Associate Professor of ducation# Chair of $raduate ducation Progra%s#

ditor&in&Chief, lectronic Maga'ine of Multicultural ducation

(http)**www.eastern.edu*pu+lications*e%%e

Contact: astern !ni"ersity

ducation Depart%ent

1- agle Road

St. Da"ids, PA 1/021&-31&14/ (office# hchang5eastern.edu

21&/23&0011 (ho%e

Abstract:

Autoethnography is an ethnographic in6uiry that utili'es the auto+iographic %aterials of

the researcher as the pri%ary data. Differing fro% other self&narrati"e writings such as

auto+iography and %e%oir, autoethnography e%phasi'es cultural analysis and

interpretation of the researcher7s +eha"iors, thoughts, and e8periences in relation toothers in society. Autoethnography should +e ethnographical in its %ethodological

orientation, cultural in its interpreti"e orientation, and auto+iographical in its contentorientation. 9n this chapter the author discusses the definition of this in6uiry %ethod,%ethodology, and +enefits of autoethnography as well as pitfalls to a"oid when doing

autoethnography.

Contributor:

Heewon Chang (Ph. D., !ni"ersity of Oregon is Associate Professor of ducation andChair of $raduate ducation Progra%s at astern !ni"ersity, Pennsyl"ania, !.S.A,

where she teaches courses on %ulticultural education, research design, gender e6uity

education, and glo+al education. She founded an open&access e&:ournal,Electronic

Magazine of Multicultural Education(http)**www.eastern.edu*pu+lications*e%%e, in1/// and has ser"ed as ditor&in&Chief. Her +oo;,Adolescent Life and Ethos: An

Ethnography of a US High School (1///, . ?rained as an educational anthropologist, she

;eeps her research focus on %ulticultural education, anthropology and education, and

ethnographic and autoethnographic %ethodology. Her li"ed e8perience with the @orean,!S, and $er%an cultures infor% her teaching and research agenda.
http://www.eastern.edu/publications/emmehttp://www.eastern.edu/publications/emmehttp://www.eastern.edu/publications/emmehttp://www.eastern.edu/publications/emme


2/25

>

AUTOETHNOGRAPHY AS METHOD:

Raisin Cultural Consciousness o! Sel! an" Others

#hat Is Autoethnora$h%&

Autoethnography is ethnographical and auto+iographical at the sa%e ti%e. Here 9

intentionally place ethnographicalB +efore auto+iographicalB to highlight the

ethnographical character of this in6uiry %ethod. ?his character connotes that

autoethnography utili'es the ethnographic research %ethods and is concerned a+out the

cultural connection +etween self and others representing the society. ?his ethnographic

aspect distinguishes autoethnography fro% other narrati"e&oriented writings such as

auto+iography, %e%oir, or :ournal.

llis ochner (> define autoethnography as auto+iographies that self&

consciously e8plore the interplay of the introspecti"e, personally engaged self with

cultural descriptions %ediated through language, history, and ethnographic e8planationB

(p. 3>. Although their definition leans too far toward the auto+iographical than the

ethnographic end, their o+ser"ation of connecting the personal to the culturalB

accurately points to the i%portant %ission of autoethnography (p. -/. ?his i%portant

lin;age +etween the self and the socialB is also e%phasi'ed in Reed&Danahay7s (1//

oft&6uoted +oo;,Auto/Ethngoraphy: Rewriting the Self and the Social. 9n these wor;s of

llis, ochner, and Reed&Danahay, the selfB refers to an ethnographer self.

Howe"er, when the ter% auto&ethnographyB was first introduced +y anthropologist

Heider (1/4, selfB did not %ean the ethnographer self, +ut rather the infor%ant self. 9n

his study of Dani people, he called their cultural accounts of the%sel"es the Dani7s


3/25

-

autoethnography. ?he ter% was used in a si%ilar way when ut' and esio (>3

discussed the coloni'ed people7s self&understanding. Hayano (1// e%ployed the ter%

autoethnographyB differently when he studied his own people.B Eolcott (>3

infor%s us that his own peopleB were card players who spent leisure hours playing

cards in Southern California7s legiti%ate card roo%sB (p. /0.

Since then, an e8tensi"e list of la+els has +een used to refer to auto+iographical

applications in social science research according to llis and ochner (>, pp. -/&

3.


4/25

3

its content orientation. ?his i%plies that self&reflecti"e writings deficient in any one of

these ingredients would fall short of auto&ethno&graphy.B

Metho"olo% o! Autoethnora$h%

arious %ethodological strategies of autoethnography ha"e +een de"eloped in a

"ariety of 6ualitati"e research traditions and listed under different na%es (llis

ochner >, p. 3. ?he list of the na%es is also e8tensi"e according to these authors.

Regardless of different origins and representations, all the %ethodological strategies

share the co%%onality of +eing the 6ualitati"e, narrati"e in6uiryB (Clandinin and

Connelly >. So%e are %ore ethnographic than others in ter%s of its ethnographic

intent and research process. ?he auto+iographic in6uires with the ethnographic

orientation are the ones 9 focus on in this chapter.

=i;e ethnography, autoethnography pursues the ulti%ate goal of cultural

understanding underlying auto+iographical e8periences. ?o achie"e this ethnographic

intent, autoethnographers undergo the usual ethnographic research process of data

collection, data analysis*interpretation, and report writing. ?hey collect field data +y

%eans of participation, self&o+ser"ation, inter"iew, and docu%ent re"iew# "erify data +y

triangulating sources and contents# analy'e and interpret data to decipher the cultural

%eanings of e"ents, +eha"iors, and thoughts# and write autoethnography. =i;e

ethnographers, autoethnographers are e8pected to treat their auto+iographical data with

critical, analytical, and interpreti"e eyes to detect cultural undertones of what is recalled,

o+ser"ed, and told of the%. At the end of a thorough self&e8a%ination within its cultural


5/25

4

conte8t, autoethnographers hope to gain a cultural understanding of self and others.

Auto+iographical narrati"es will add li"e details to this principled understanding, +ut

narration should not do%inate autoethnography. 9n the following su+sections, 9 will

+rea; down the research process into two interconnected, not always se6uential, steps) (1

co%posing auto+iographical field te8ts and (> turning auto+iographical field te8ts into

autoethnography.

Co'$osin Autobiora$hical (iel" Te)ts

?he initial step of research in"ol"es collecting data, which continues throughout the

research process with different intensity at different points. Here 9 cautiously introduce a

new ter% field te8tsB +y Clandinin and Connelly (> to refer to data.B 9 will

so%eti%es use field te8tsB in lieu of dataB when co%posing field te8tsB descri+es

%ore accurately what autoethnographers do. Since the ter% dataB has +een traditionally

associated with 6uantitati"e research in6uiries and autoethnographers accu%ulate

"olu%inous te8ts as %ultiple data collection acti"ities progress, the ter% field te8tsB is

:ustifia+ly adopted as an alternati"e to data.B At the sa%e ti%e, 9 a% cautious of

replacing dataB with field te8tsB co%pletely +ecause autoethnographical fieldwor;B is

different fro% other 6ualitati"e in6uiries. Ehereas 6ualitati"e*ethnographic fieldwor; is

li;ely to ta;e place in an en"iron%ent where the researcher co%es in direct contact with

others, autoethnographic fieldwor; often in"ol"es others in the researchers7 recollection

and reflection.

Me%ory is +oth a friend and foe of autoethnographers. Ehereas it allows researchers

to tap into the wealth of data to which no one else has access, %e%ory selects, shapes,

li%its, and distorts. Me%ory fades as ti%e goes, +lurring the "itality of details. Dillard


6/25

2

(cited Clandinin and Connelly > recogni'es +lurringB as s%oothFingG out details,

lea"ing a ;ind of sche%atic landscape outlineB (p. 0-. Me%ory also triggers a"ersion

when it atte%pts to dig deeper into unpleasant past e8periences. concur that field te8ts help fill in the richness, nuance, and co%ple8ity of the

landscape, returning the reflecting researcher to a richer, %ore co%ple8, and pu''ling

landscape than %e%ory alone is li;ely to constructB (p. 0-.

Autoethnographers can use "arious techni6ues to facilitate their recalling, organi'e

%e%ories, and co%pose field te8ts as data. ?he techni6ues of data collection include, +ut

are not li%ited to, (1 using "isual tools such as free drawings of significant places,

;insgra%s,B1and culturegra%sB># (> in"entorying people, artifacts, fa%ilial and

societal "alues and pro"er+s, %entors, cross&cultural e8periences, and fa"orite*disli;ed

acti"ities# (- chronicling the autoethnographer7s educational history, typical day and

wee;, and annual life cycle# (3 reading and responding to other autoethnographies and

self&narrati"es# and (4 collecting other field te8ts such as stories of others, storied

poe%s,B personal :ournals, field notes, letters, con"ersation, inter"iews with significant


7/25

others, fa%ily stories, docu%ents, photographs, %e%ory +o8es, personal&fa%ily&social

artifacts, and life e8periences (Clandinin and Connelly >, p. 11. ?hese techni6ues

are ela+orated in %y +oo;,Autoethnography, to +e pu+lished +y =eft Coast Press in

>. Autoethnographers are co%%ended to de"elop their own techni6ues of data

collection to %eet their research goals.

One of the co%%only used data collection techni6ues for ethnography is participant&

o+ser"ation, in which researchers participate in the li"es of their infor%ants while

o+ser"ing their +eha"iors. 9n a si%ilar fashion to this, autoethnographers can o+ser"e

their own +eha"iors and docu%ent their thoughts while li"ing the%. Rodrigue' and

Rya"e (>> argue that self&o+ser"ation as a data collection techni6ue is useful +ecause

it gi"es access to co"ert, elusi"e, and*or personal e8periences li;e cogniti"e processes,

e%otions, %oti"es, concealed actions, o%itted actions, and socially restricted acti"itiesB

(p. - and +rings to the surface what is ta;en&for&granted, ha+ituated, and*or unconscious

%anner that FtheyGIare una"aila+le for recallB (p. 3. Self&o+ser"ation %ay +e used in

the for% of self&introspection when autoethnographers are alone or in the for% of

interacti"e introspectionB while the researchers interact with others. 9n the interacti"e

introspection, the researchers and the others can inter"iew each other as e6uals who try

to help one another reli"e and descri+e their recollection of e%otional e8periencesB (llis

1//1 cited Rodrigue' and Rya"e, p. . Although Rodrigue' and Rya"e7s techni6ue of

syste%atic self&o+ser"ationB is originally suggested for studies that utili'e %ultiple

infor%ants who are instructed to conduct their own self&o+ser"ation, this techni6ue can

+e applied to autoethnography that focuses on one infor%ant, none other than self.


8/25

0

:ournals or a self&de"eloped recording for% %ay +e used to docu%ent unstructured or

structured self&o+ser"ation.

9nter"iewing is another "ital data collection techni6ue e%ployed in ethnographic

fieldwor; (llis >3#


9/25

/

collection. During this data collection process, the researchers are also a+le to refine their

criteria, which will in turn shape the analysis and interpretation process.

Ehen analy'ing and interpreting autoethnographic field te8ts, autoethnographers

need to ;eep in %ind that what %a;es autoethnography ethnographical is its ethnographic

intent of gaining a cultural understanding of self that is inti%ately connected to others in

the society. ?he cultural %eanings of self7s thoughts and +eha"iorsJ"er+al and non&

"er+alJneed to +e interpreted in their cultural conte8t. 9nterpretation +egs a 6uestion of

whyB to +e answered) Ehy does a self percei"e, thin;, +eha"e, and e"aluate the way it

does and how does the self relate to others in thoughts and actionsKB Autoethnographic

data analysis and interpretation in"ol"es %o"ing +ac; and forth +etween self and others,

'oo%ing in and out of the personal and social real%, and su+%erging in and e%erging out

of data. =i;e other ethnographic in6uiries, this step of research process is

%ethodologically ne+ulous to descri+e and instruct +ecause analysis and interpretation

re6uire ethnographers7 holistic insight, creati"e %i8ing of %ultiple approaches, and

patience with uncertainty. Let so%e si%ple strategiesJsearching for recurring patterns,

applying e8isting theoretical fra%ewor;s, and co%pare&contrasting with other

autoethnographiesJcan +e adopted as a starter in the process of analysis and

interpretation.

?he interwea"ing of data collection, analysis, and interpretation ulti%ately leads to

the production of autoethnography. ?his %eans that auto+iographical writing cannot

co%e without a %ethodical process of ethnography and its focus on cultural

understanding. Howe"er, it does not %ean that writing can +egin only when

analysis*interpretation is co%pleted. Eolcott (>1 suggests that ethnographers +egin


10/25

1

writing earlier in the ethnographic process, e"en during the early stage of fieldwor;,

+ecause writing sti%ulates, helps organi'e, and facilitates the su+se6uent data

collection*analysis*interpretation process. ?his suggestion is useful for

autoethnographers.

?he writing style of autoethnography can "ary, falling so%ewhere in the continuu%s

+etween realistB description and i%pressionistB caricature and analytical description

and confessionalB self&e8posure. an Maanen7s (1/00 classification of ethnographic

writings %ay help autoethnographers e8peri%ent with different styles such as realistic

tales,B confessional tales,B and i%pressionist tales.B Realistic tales refer to %atter&of&

fact accounts and representations that ethnographers gi"e a+out people who% they ha"e

studied first hand. Realist tales are characteri'ed +y %inute, so%eti%es precious, +ut

thoroughly %undane details of e"eryday life a%ong the people studiedB (p. 30 and

include accounts and e8planations +y %e%+ers of the culture of the e"ents in their li"esB

(p. 3/. thnographers who e%ploy realist tales tend to spea; of the people they ha"e

studied with the authority of an e8pert. 9n reaction to realist ethnographers7 una+ashed

clai% of authority o"er other people7s culture, those who practice confessional

ethnography e8pose how particular wor;s FreallyG ca%e into +eingB (p. 3 in

confessional tales. Personal +iases, character flaws, or +ad ha+its,B which an Maanen

du+s as e%+arrassing,B are candidly displayed to de%ystify the ethnographic process

and to aug%ent a reasona+ly unconta%inated and pure FethnographyG despite all the

+otherso%e pro+le%s e8posed in the confessionB (p. 0. 9%pressionist tales highlight

rareB and %e%ora+leB fieldwor; e8periences (p. 1>. 9f realist tales focus on the

doneB and confessional tales on the doer,B i%pressionist tales present the doing of


11/25

11

fieldwor;B (p. 1>. 9f autoethnographers ;eep in %ind that these tales are originally

identified with ethnography and thus need to +e %odified when applied to

autoethnography, the different tales %ay pro"ide alternati"es in autoethnographic writing.

Ehiche"er style autoethnographers decide to e%ploy, autoethnographers are ad"ised not

to lose the sight of the 6uintessential identity of autoethnography as a cultural study of

self and others.

*ene!its o! Autoethnora$h%

Autoethnography is +eco%ing a useful and powerful tool for researchers and

practitioners who deal with hu%an relations in %ulticultural settings) e.g., educators,

social wor;ers, %edical professionals, clergy, and counselors. enefits of

autoethnography lie in three areas) (1 it offers a research %ethod friendly to researchers

and readers# (> it enhances cultural understanding of self and others# and (- it has a

potential to transfor% self and others toward the cross&cultural coalition +uilding.

Methodologically spea;ing, autoethnography is researcher&friendly. ?his in6uiry

%ethod allows researchers to access easily the pri%ary data source fro% the +eginning

+ecause the source is the%sel"es. 9n addition, autoethnographers are pri"ileged with a

holistic and inti%ate perspecti"e on their fa%iliar data.B ?his initial fa%iliarity gi"es

researchers an ad"antageous edge in data collection and in&depth data

analysis*interpretation.

Autoethnography is also reader&friendly in that the personally engaging writing style

tends to appeal to readers %ore than the con"entional scholarly writing. According to


12/25

1>

ash (>3, scholarly personal narrati"esB li+erate researchers fro% a+stract,

i%personal writings and touch readers7 li"es +y infor%ing their e8periencesB (p. >0.

$ergen and $ergen (>> also elo6uently state, 9n using oneself as an ethnographic

e8e%plar, the researcher is freed fro% the traditional con"entions of writing. One7s

uni6ue "oicingJco%plete with collo6uialis%s, re"er+erations fro% %ultiple

relationships, and e%otional e8pressi"enessJis honoredB (p. 13. ?his uni6ue "oice of

the autoethnographer is what readers respond to.

Secondly, autoethnography is an e8cellent "ehicle through which researchers co%e to

understand the%sel"es and others. 9 found this +enefit particularly applica+le to %y

teaching of %ulticultural education. As a teacher educator, 9 feel co%pelled to prepare

%y students to +eco%e cross&culturally sensiti"e and effecti"e teachers for students of

di"erse cultural +ac;grounds. Self&reflection and self&e8a%ination are the ;eys to self&

understanding (1# ieto >-. @ennett (1/// concurs with other

ad"ocates of self&reflection, saying that Fwriting culturalG auto+iography allows students

to reflect on the forces that ha"e shaped their character and infor%ed their sense of selfB

(p. >-1. ?he forcesB that shape people7s sense of self include nationality, religion,

gender, education, ethnicity, socio&econo%ic class, and geography. !nderstanding the

forcesB also helps the% e8a%ine their preconceptions and feelings a+out others, whether

they are others of si%ilarity,B others of difference,B or e"en others of oppositionB

(Chang, >4. Others of si%ilarity refer to %e%+ers of cultural groups that one +elongs

to, feels co%forta+le with, and share co%%on "alues with. Others of difference are those

who +elong to groups that ha"e different cultural standards than the self. Others of


13/25

1-

opposition are those who are considered as ene%iesB to the self due to see%ingly

irreconcila+le differences.

ot only writing one7s own autoethnography +ut also reading others7

autoethnography can e"o;e self&reflection and self&e8a%ination (1#

ash >>. Connelly shares a poignant story of how reading the self&narrati"e of his

doctoral student of Chinese heritage stirred up his childhood %e%ory of a Chinese store

owner fro% his rural ho%etown in Canada (Clandinin and Connelly >. ?hrough self&

reflection, he disco"ered shared hu%anity +etween this stranger of his childhood and

hi%self. ?his disco"ery of self and others is a definite +enefit of doing and sharing

autoethnographies.

?hirdly, doing, sharing, and reading autoethnography also help transfor% researchers

and readers (listeners in the process. ?he transfor%ation of self and others is not

necessarily a pri%ary goal of autoethnography +ut a fre6uently occurring, powerful +y&

product of this research in6uiry. Coia and ?aylors7 (>2 e8peri%entation with

co*autoethnographyB illustrates this +enefit. 9n this participatory process, the

researchers in"ol"ed their education students in writing their personal narrati"es, %eeting

in s%all groups wee;ly to share the narrati"es aloud and conduct a cultural analysis

colla+orati"ely, e8changing newly ac6uired self&awareness on their past, present, and

future sel"es,B and ulti%ately strengthenFingG perspecti"e on teachingB (p. >1. 9n the

end, the authors witnessed that students7 self&awareness and cultural understanding were

+roadened and their teaching philosophies and practices +eca%e %ore inclusi"e and

sensiti"e to others7 needs.


14/25

13

Self&transfor%ation %ay +e %anifested in different ways in the education field. So%e

%ay +eco%e %ore self&reflecti"e in their daily pra8is (1# ieto >3#

O+idah and ?eel >1. Others %ay adopt culturally rele"ant pedagogyB when selecting

curriculu% content and pedagogical strategies, and interacting students, peer teachers,

and the co%%unity (=adson&illings 1//3. Self&transfor%ation %ay also ta;e place as

they see; to reach out to unfa%iliar others and pursue a new learning of unfa%iliar

cultures. As their understanding of others increases, unfa%iliarity di%inishes and

perspecti"es on others change. As a result, others of difference and of opposition %ay +e

refra%ed to +e included in their notion of co%%unity, e8tended co%%unityB in

$reene7s (> ter%.

Another type of self&transfor%ation %ay acco%pany healings fro% the e%otional

scars of the past, which


15/25

14

Pit!alls to A+oi" in Doin Autoethnora$h%

9n the shadow of the growing interest and support of autoethnographic research

%ethods, criti6ues are lur;ing. ?he criticis% of autoethnography does not necessarily

i%ply that this in6uiry is inherently faulty. Rather, it re%inds researchers to loo; out

"igilantly for appropriate application of this research in6uiry and to a"oid potential

pitfalls. Here are fi"e pitfalls that autoethnographers need to watch out) (1 e8cessi"e

focus on self in isolation of others# (> o"ere%phasis on narration rather than analysis and

cultural interpretation# (- e8clusi"e reliance on personal %e%ory and recalling as a data

source# (3 negligence of ethical standards regarding others in self&narrati"es# and (4

inappropriate application of the la+el autoethnography.B

?he first pitfall relates to the "ery notion of culture. 9n the %inds of anthropologists,

culture is inherently a group&oriented concept. Culture and people ha"e a sy%+iotic

relationship according to de Munc; (> who says) Culture would cease to e8ist

without the indi"iduals who %a;e it upI. Culture re6uires our presence as indi"iduals.

Eith this sy%+iosis, self and culture together %a;e each other up and, in that process,

%a;e %eaningB (pp. 1&>. ?herefore, the notion of culturepredisposes the co&presence of

others e"en in a discussion of indi"idual cultureBJpropriospectB in $oodenough7s

(1/01 and Eolcott7s (1//1 ter% and idio"erseB in Schwart'7 ter% (1/0 cited de

Munc; >. y these authors, an indi"idual culture is an indi"idual "ersion of their

group cultures, which they construct in relationship with others. Autoethnography,

therefore, should reflect the interconnecti"ity of self and others. !nfortunately the

%ethodological focus on self is so%eti%es %isconstrued as a license to dig deeper in


16/25

12

personal e8periences without digging wider into the cultural conte8t of the indi"idual

stories co%%ingled with others. Autoethnographers should +e warned that self&indulgent

introspection is li;ely to produce a self&e8posing story +ut not autoethnography.

Second, autoethnographers swept +y the power of story telling can easily neglect the

"ery i%portant %ission of autoethnographyJcultural interpretation and analysis of

auto+iographic te8ts. Self&narration is "ery engaging to writers as well as readers and

listeners (4# ash >3# ?o%p;ins 1//2. Let, as Coia

and ?aylor (>2 say, 9t is not enough si%ply to tell the story or write a :ournal entryB

(p. 1/ for the cultural understanding of self to ta;e place. !nless autoethnographers stay

focused on their research purpose, they can +e te%pted to settle for ela+orate narrati"es

with underde"eloped cultural analysis and interpretation.

?hird, autoethnographers can fall into the pitfall of o"er&relying on their personal

%e%ory as the source of data. Personal %e%ory is a %ar"elous and uni6ue source of

infor%ation for autoethnographers. 9t taps into the reser"oir of data to which other

ethnographers ha"e no access. Let, Muncey (>4 re%inds us, Me%ory is selecti"e

and shaped, and is retold in the continuu% of one7s e8perience, FalthoughG this does not

necessarily constitute lyingB (p. >. Me%ory can censor past e8periences. Ehen data is

collected fro% a single tool without other %easures for chec;s and +alances, the "alidity

of data can +e 6uestioned. Ehen the single tool is the researcher self, the un+ridled

su+:ecti"ity of autoethnographers can +e %ore se"erely challenged. Although the

o+session with o+:ecti"ity is not necessary for 6ualitati"e research, autoethnographers

need to support their argu%ents with +road&+ased data li;e in any good research practice.


17/25

1

%e%ory with e8ternalB data fro% outside sources, such as inter"iews, docu%ents, and

artifacts. Multiple sources of data can pro"ide +ases for triangulation that will help

enhance content accuracy and "alidity of the autoethnographic writing.

?he fourth pitfall ste%s fro% a false notion that confidentiality does not apply to self&

narrati"e studies +ecause researchers use their auto+iographical stories. Playing the

%ulti&faceted role of a researcher, infor%ant, and author, autoethnographers %ay +e

te%pted to clai% full authorship and responsi+ility for their stories without hesitation.

Clandinin and Connelly7 (> poignant 6uestion to narrati"e in6uirers, Do they own a

story +ecause they tell itK,B should e6ually challenge autoethnographers. Since

autoethnographers7 personal stories are often lin;ed to stories of others, howe"er e8plicit

the lin;age is, the principle of protecting confidentiality of people in the story is :ust as

rele"ant to autoethnography. Since %ain characters re"eal their identities in

autoethnography, it is e8tre%ely difficult to protect fully others inti%ately connected to

these ;nown characters. Let, autoethnographers, li;e other researchers of hu%an

su+:ects, are charged to adhere to the ethical principle of confidentiality. ?his in6uiry

%ethod de%ands %ore creati"ity in practicing it.

?he last pitfall concerns the confusion in using the ter% autoethnography.B As 9

discussed earlier in this chapter, the ter% has +een used to refer to a "ariety of narrati"e

in6uiries sprung up in different acade%ic disciplines. ?he %i8ed +ag la+eled with

autoethnographyB has confused researchers as well as readers. Since no one can clai%

an e8clusi"e license to use this la+el, it is the researcher7s responsi+ility to +eco%e

infor%ed of the %ultiple usage of the ter% and to define their use clearly to a"oid

confusion. ?hat is precisely what Eolcott (>3 does in his article, thnographic


18/25

10

Auto+iography.B Although %y use of autoethnography differs fro% what he proposesJ

lea"ing the ter% to the original %eaning +y Hayano who refers to autoethnography as a

study of the researcher7s own peopleJhis conscious clarification of the ter% clearly

orients readers. Eith the rigorous effort to distinguish autoethnography fro% other self&

narrati"e in6uiries, readers will +e a+le to understand this research %ethod for what it

stands for, distinguishing it fro% highly descripti"e self&narrati"es such as

auto+iography and %e%oir.

Conclusion

As the outgoing president of the Council on Anthropology and ducation (a

su+di"ision of A%erican Anthropological Association, =eCo%pte (1/0 once asserted

in her speech, later pu+lished as article, that all research endea"ors are auto+iographic. 9

understood her re%ar; to i%ply that research topics, %ethods, and processes that we

select reflect our personal interest, +iases, and circu%stances. Ehen 9 reflect on %y

ethnographic and 6ualitati"e wor;s, 9 find her co%%ent insightful and accurate.

My preference of case&specific narrati"es, field&+ased research %ethods, and

adolescents has led %e through a series of ethnographic*6ualitati"e studies. eginning

with A%erican high school students on the Eest Coast of the !. S. A. (Chang, 1//>a, 9

%o"ed on to a study of @orean fe%ale students in a "ocational high school (Cho

Chang, 1/0/# Chang, >, to @orean&A%erican high school students (1//>+, and to

Christian high school students in Pennsyl"ania (Chang, 1//0. enues ha"e changed,


19/25

1/

+ut %y dogged co%%it%ent to ethnography and adolescents has persisted. Ehat is the

cultural root of %y persistenceK

Searching for answers to 6uestions such as this is what autoethnographers do and

what 9 ha"e done in %y autoethnography. Although 9 reser"e an ela+orate cultural

analysis of %yself for another place, here 9 can safely note that the research process has

+een e%powering and transfor%ati"e. My teaching and doing autoethnography has

helped %y students and %e (1 connectour indi"idual past with our indi"idual and

collecti"e present, (> understandculturally rooted reasons for our co%fort with others

of si%ilarity, disco%fort with others of difference, and a"ersion with others of

opposition, and (- epandthis understanding into culturally unfa%iliar territories.

Opening&up to the new understanding and new possi+ility is the definite +enefit of

autoethnography, which gi"es a foundation to cross&cultural coalition +uilding to

e%+race others, e"en others of opposition, in the %ulticultural society.

En"notes

1. ?he ;insgra%B refers to a ;inship diagra% that "isually shows one7s relation to other

%e%+ers in his*her ;inship structure, created or dissol"ed +y +irth*death,

%arriage*di"orce, and other for%s of attach%ent*separation. @inship diagra% is often

adopted in anthropological fieldwor; (see ates and -, p. >0># and Puples

and ailey >-, p. 1/.

>. ?he culturegra%,B a self&coined ter%, refers to a we+&li;e chart on which

autoethnographers display their %ulti&faceted self&identity in ter%s of %ulticultural


20/25

>

categories such as nationality, ethnicity, race, language, gender, religion, socio&econo%ic

class, and other interests (Chang, >>.

Re!erences

A?S, D.$. -., !ultural anthropology. -rded. oston, MA)

Pearson.

ut', D.& Besio, K., 2004. The value of autoethnography for field research in transcultural settings. Professional

geographer, 56(3), 30!3"0.

CHA$, H., 1//>a.Adolescent life and ethos: an ethnography of a US high school"

=ondon, !@) +. Persist or perish in the 6ualitati"e studies of adolescents)

strategies to win a silent negotiation. #$$% &U'( conference proceedings"Athens, $A)

!ni"ersity of $eorgia.

CHA$, H., 1//0. 9s cultural di"ersity a friend or a foeK) an ethnography of

Christian schools. Paper presented at the 1//0 Acade%ic . ?riple :eopardy in identity for%ation) @orean ur+an girls in an

e"ening co%%ercial high school. Paper presented at the !r+an $irls Conference, S!L,

uffalo, L.

CHA$, H. >>. Cultural auto+iography) self&reflecti"e practices for %ulticultural

educators,B Paper presented at the CC? ducation >> Conference, Cal"in College,


21/25

>1

$rand Rapids, Ml

CHA$, H., >4. Self&narrati"es for Christian %ulticultural educators) a pathway to

understanding self and others.A )ournal of the international co**unity of !hristians in

teacher education FonlineG, 1 (1. A"aila+le fro%

http)**www.iccte:ournal.org*9CC?Nournal*pastissues*"ol1issue1*"1i1chang FAccessed

>2 2G.

CHO, . CHA$, H., 1/0/. =ife and "alue syste% of e"ening girls7 co%%ercial

high school students in @orea (written in @orean.Annual +ournal of Soong Sil arts and

sciences research institute, #$, 11&-0.

CO9A, =. ?AL=OR, M., >2.


22/25

>>

==9S, C. 1//1. Sociological introspection and e%otional e8perience.Sy*1olic

interaction, #2" >-&4"

==9S, C. >3.An ethnographic ': a *ethodological noel a1out autoethnography"

Ealnut Cree;, CA) Alta%ira.

==9S, C. OCHR, A. P., >. Autoethnography, personal narrati"e, and

personal refle8i"ity.'n:Den'in, . =incoln, L., >.Hand1oo of 0ualitatie

research. >nded. ?housand Oa;s, CA) Sage, --&20.

>. thnographic representation as relationship.

'n:A. ochner C. llis, eds.Ethnographically speaing: autoethnography, literature,

and aesthetics" Ealnut Cree;, CA) Alta%ira, 11&--.


23/25

>-

$OODO!$H, E., 1/01. !ulture, language, and society. Menlo Par;, CA) ?he

en:a%in*Cu%%ings Pu+lishing Co%pany.

$R, M., >. ?he passions of pluralis%) %ulticulturalis% and the e8panding

co%%unity.'n: N. oel, ed., Sources: nota1le selection in *ulticultural education"

$uilford, C?) Dush;in*Mc$raw&Hill, -0&32.

HALAO, D. M., 1//. Auto&ethnography) paradig%s, pro+le%s, and prospects.

Hu*an organization, -0 (1, //&13.

H9DR, @.$., 1/4. Ehat do people doK Dani auto&ethnography.)ournal of

anthropological research, -1, -&1.

@?, C. =. 1///. Saying %ore than hello) creating insightful cross&cultural

con"ersations.'n:D. C. lliott S. D. Holtrop, eds..urturing and reflectie teachers: a

!hristian approach for the %#stcentury. Clare%ont, CA) =earning =ight ducational

Consulting and Pu+lishing, >>/&>30.

=ADSO&9==9$S, $., 1//3. 3he drea*eepers: successful teachers of African

A*erican children"San


24/25

>3

http)**www.ual+erta.ca*Qii6%*+ac;issues*31*pdf*Muncey.pdf FAccessed / 2G.

ASH, R.N., >>. Spirituality, ethics, religion, and teaching: A professor4s +ourney.

ew Lor;) Peter =ang.

ASH, R.N., >3.Li1erating scholarly writing: the power of personal narratie.

ew Lor;) ?eachers College Press.

9?O, S., >-. 5hat eeps teachers going6ew Lor;) ?eachers College.

9?O, S., >3.Affir*ing diersity: the sociopolitical contet of *ulticultural

education. 3thed. oston, MA. ) Allyn and acon.

O9DAH, N.. ?=, @.M., >1.7ecause of the ids: facing racial and cultural

differences in schools"ew Lor;) ?eachers College.

P!P=S, N. A9=L, $., >-.Hu*anity: introduction to cultural anthropology.

alti%ore, MD) Eadsworth.

RD&DAAHAL, D. ., ed., 1//.Auto/ethnography: rewriting the self and the

social"ew Lor;) O8ford.

RODR9$!, . RLA, A., >>. Syste*atic self-o1seration" ?housand Oa;s,

CA) Sage.

SCHS!=, S.=., SCHS!=, N.N., =COMP?, M.D., 1///. Essential

ethnographic *ethods: o1serations, interiews, and 0uestionnaires" Ealnut Cree;, CA)

Alta%ira.


25/25

>4

SCHEAR?, ?., 1/0. Ehere is the cultureK Personality as the locus of culture.'n:

$. De os, ed.Maing of psychological anthropology. er;eley) !ni"ersity of

California, 31/&331.

?OMP@9S, N.P., 1//2.A life in school: what the teacher learned. Reading, MA)

Perseus oo;s.

A MAA, N., 1/00. 3ales of the field: on writing ethnography" Chicago, 9=)

!ni"ersity of Chicago.

EO=CO??, H.nded. ?housand Oa;s, CA)

Sage.

EO=CO??, H.3. ?he ethnographic auto+iography.Auto/7iography, #%, /-&

12.

Eng 101- Autoethnography by Chang

Documents

Transcript of Eng 101- Autoethnography by Chang