Article

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

January-December 2016: 1–9
Toward a Moderate Autoethnography ª The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1609406916674966
ijqm.sagepub.com

Sarah Stahlke Wall1

Abstract
Autoethnography is an avant-garde method of qualitative inquiry that has captured the attention of an ever-increasing number of
scholars from a variety of disciplines. Personal experience methods can offer a new and unique vantage point from which to make
a contribution to social science yet, autoethnography has been criticized for being self-indulgent, narcissistic, introspective, and
individualized. Methodological discussions about this method are polarized. As an autoethnographer and qualitative methodol-
ogist with an interest in personal experience methods, I have had the opportunity to review several autoethnographic manuscripts
over the years. As my reviews accumulated, I began to see themes in my responses and it became apparent that I was advocating
for an approach to autoethnography that lies in contrast to the frequently offered methodological polemics from philosophically
divergent scholars. In this article, I draw from the reviews I have done to address topics such as applications and purposes for
autoethnography, the degree of theory and analysis used within the method, data sources and dissemination of findings, and ethical
issues. I then connect the concerns I see in the reviewed manuscripts to examples in the autoethnographic literature. Ultimately, I
propose a moderate and balanced treatment of autoethnography that allows for innovation, imagination, and the representation
of a range of voices in qualitative inquiry while also sustaining confidence in the quality, rigor, and usefulness of academic research.

Keywords
autoethnography, self, academic convention, theory, methodological innovation

What is Already Known? number of scholars from a variety of disciplines. Grounded in

postmodern philosophy that makes room for diverse and
Autoethnography is an intriguing method that is increasingly uti-
nontraditional ways of knowing, autoethnographic work pro-
lized to study social phenomena through the lens of the author/
duces ‘‘highly personalized accounts that draw upon the
researcher’s personal experience. Approaches range from analytic
experience of the author/researcher for the purposes of
to evocative, although evocative autoethnography is becoming
extending sociological understanding’’ (Sparkes, 2000,
more prominent. Methodological debates are polarized. p. 21). Personal experience methods are said to offer a new
and unique vantage point from which to make a contribution
What this Paper Adds: to social science by considering ‘‘macro and micro linkages;
The current state of autoethnography is explored through the structure, agency and their intersection; [and] social repro-
author’s experience as a reviewer of autoethnographic manu- duction and social change’’ (Laslett, 1999, p. 392). Yet,
scripts. Characteristics of contemporary autoethnography are despite the strong influence of postmodernism in contempo-
linked to published examples of both evocative and analytic rary qualitative inquiry, autoethnography has been criticized
autoethnographies, in order to illuminate the issues inherent in for being self-indulgent, narcissistic, introspective, and indi-
polarized approaches. A middle ground is proposed that would vidualized (Atkinson, 1997; Sparkes, 2000). Polarized meth-
tap into the unique value of personal experience, while main- odological debates abound.
taining the scholarly potential of autoethnography.
1
Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Introduction Corresponding Author:

Sarah Stahlke Wall, Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, 5-278 Edmonton
Autoethnography is an avant-garde method of qualitative Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Ave., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 1C9.
inquiry that has captured the attention of an ever-increasing Email: sarah.stahlke@ualberta.ca

Creative Commons CC-BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

As an autoethnographer and qualitative methodologist with there were approximately 5–10 new autoethnographic articles
an interest in personal experience methods (Wall, 2006, 2008, per year between the years 1990 and 2002. Since 2003, how-
2012a, 2012b, 2012c; Wall & Shankar, 2008), I have had sev- ever, there have been about 35 new autoethnographic articles
eral opportunities to review the manuscripts of other authors per year, based on a simple keyword search using the term
who use autoethnography to investigate social phenomena and autoethnography (Muncey, 2010). Autoethnographies cover a
who discuss and consider the methodological issues inherent in range of purposes such as seeking meaning in difficult situa-
this form of inquiry. As my reviews accumulated, I began to see tions (Ellis & Bochner, 2006), exploring issues of personal
themes in my responses, and it became apparent that I was importance within an explicitly acknowledged social context
advocating for an approach to autoethnography that lies in con- (e.g., Holt, 2001; Sparkes, 1996), or critiquing extant literature
trast to the frequently offered methodological polemics from on a topic of personal significance (e.g., Muncey, 2005; Wall,
philosophically divergent scholars. In this article, I draw from 2012a, 2012b). Substantively, they deal with an incredible
the reviews I have done to address topics such as applications diversity of topics such as work activities and experiences
and purposes for autoethnography, the degree of theory and (Duncan, 2004; Mischenko, 2005), illness and injury (Ettorre,
analysis used within the method, data sources and dissemination 2005; Sparkes, 1996), academic life (Pelias, 2003), family life
of findings, and ethical issues. Ultimately, I propose a moderate (Muncey, 2005; Wall, 2012a, 2012b), and membership in alter-
and balanced treatment of autoethnography that allows for inno- native cultural communities (Calley Jones, 2010).
vation, imagination, and the representation of a range of voices Although autoethnography has attracted considerable atten-
in qualitative inquiry while also sustaining confidence in the tion and has flourished as an emerging qualitative method,
quality, rigor, and usefulness of academic research. Hayano’s (1979) admonitions linger. At present, there is a
debate about the extent to which autoethnography should be
narrative, emotional, therapeutic, and self-focused as opposed
Methodological Background to theoretical, analytical, and scholarly, with a more traditional
of Autoethnography understanding of self as connected to a particular ethnographic
Qualitative research in the social sciences has often involved a context rather than the focus of it (Anderson, 2006; Atkinson,
personal connection between the researcher and the field being 1997, 2006; Denzin, 2006; Ellis & Bochner, 2006; Muncey,
studied (Anderson, 2006). Most often, however, although 2010). In a published debate appearing in the Journal of Con-
researchers may have studied settings in which they were temporary Ethnography, Anderson (2006) argued in favor of
closely involved in their personal lives, there has been a general an analytic form of autoethnography that is congruent with
tendency to limit any significant emphasis on the researcher Hayano’s earlier support for a view of autoethnography as
himself or herself as a part of the study (Anderson, 2006). realist ethnography that includes, but is not limited to, the
There have been some exceptions such as A Chinese village reflexively positioned self of the author/ethnographer, arguing
by Yang (1945), which is an autoethnography written entirely that ‘‘autoethnography loses its sociological promise when it
from the author’s memories of his childhood, and Wallace’s devolves into self-absorption’’ (p. 385). Similarly, Atkinson
detailed descriptions of his everyday activities in Driving to (2006) offered support for Anderson’s version of analytic auto-
work (1965) and A day at the office (1972). Yet, even by 1979 ethnography, which is essentially traditional ethnography with
when David Hayano first coined the term ‘‘autoethnography,’’ the personal commitments of the ethnographer made explicit,
his purpose in using this term was to describe traditional eth- observing that ‘‘the goals of analysis and theorizing are too
nography among one’s own people. He explicitly stated, often lost to sight in contemporary fashions for subjective and
evocative ethnographic work’’ (p. 400).
I also acknowledge but disregard studies . . . which analyze Conversely, those who see autoethnography as more aligned
one’s own life through the procedures of ethnography. These with postmodern sensibilities and ways of knowing advocate
studies are not only autoethnographic, they are self- for an evocative, narrative form of autoethnography that
ethnographic, but it is not immediately shown how they are ‘‘shows struggle, passion, embodied life, and the collaborative
applicable to other cultural members. (p. 103) creation of sense-making in situations in which people have to
cope with dire circumstances and loss of meaning’’ (Ellis &
Despite this reproof, the term autoethnography has since Bochner, 2006, p. 433). They lament Anderson’s more conser-
been taken up by those who use it precisely to name such vative position noting that he ‘‘wants to take autoethnography
self-ethnographic studies. Carolyn Ellis and Arthur Bochner which, as a mode of inquiry, was designed to be unruly, dan-
have been leaders in the development of autoethnography as gerous, vulnerable, rebellious, and creative and bring it under
a research method, explaining that the primary purpose of per- the control of reason, logic, and analysis’’ (p. 433). Ellis and
sonal writing is to ‘‘understand [ . . . ] some aspect of a life lived Bochner’s perspective has been enormously influential in the
in a cultural context’’ (Ellis & Bochner, 2000, p. 742). Since the field of qualitative inquiry and has led to the production of very
turn to personal experience research as framed by Ellis and personal, experimental autoethnographic writing, which many
Bochner, there has been a virtual explosion of interest in auto- have found intriguing. This perspective on autoethnography is
ethnographic work. According to Muncey (2010) who has richly and exclusively represented in the recent and influential
monitored the rates of autoethnographic work in the literature, Handbook of autoethnography (Holman Jones, Adams, & Ellis,
Stahlke Wall 3

2013a). In fact, as Anderson (2006) notes, ‘‘the current dis- could be better managed. In response to one manuscript, I com-
course on this genre of research refers almost exclusively to mented that ‘‘there seems to be a lot of rich experience in the story
‘evocative autoethnography’’’ (p. 373). that is worthy of examination and analysis.’’ On another, I noted
As I have reviewed autoethnographic manuscripts that have that the paper was ‘‘wonderfully interesting’’ and relevant to a
been produced in line with evocative ethnography, I have been topic that was ‘‘in need of further exploration in [the discipline].’’
troubled and have seen merit in giving attention to some of the One manuscript, which was eventually accepted for publication,
traditional elements of scholarly inquiry, as encouraged by was an engaging and evocative story about a profound health
Anderson (2006) and Atkinson (2006). As I reread my accu- experience that the author had not only told quite artfully but also
mulated reviews, I could see an emerging philosophy contained analyzed thematically and theoretically. It made a significant,
within them. In this article, I aim to explicate that philosophy in highly unique, insightful, and useful contribution to academic and
support of a balanced and moderate approach to autoethnogra- professional knowledge development.
phy, an approach that settles somewhere in between the polar- Nevertheless, in spite of the rich potential for contributions
ized debates. Indeed, the dichotomy of evocative versus to knowledge contained in many of these manuscripts, a num-
analytic autoethnography is more of a continuum than a binary ber of issues continued to arise for me that made me anxious
(Allen-Collinson, 2013), and there are examples of autoethno- about the direction in which autoethnography appears to be
graphic work that fall at all points along it (some of which I will headed. These concerns centered around terminology and
highlight later to support the philosophy I first noticed emer- appropriate applications of the method, the emotional dimen-
ging from my reviews). It is the middle that I wish to explicate sions of autoethnography, the quality of data and its analysis
and promote—a point on the continuum that is scarcely repre- and presentation, and the ethical issues pertinent to this
sented in the methodological literature about autoethnography. approach to knowledge development.

My Reviews as Data The Naming and Applications of Autoethnography

In this article, I reflect on my reviews and identify the themes This first area of concern relates to the naming of personal
that I see as important to consider in the ongoing development of experience methods and the range of work that falls under the
autoethnography. I use the content of 15 reviews that I com- label of autoethnography. One manuscript, in particular, high-
pleted between 2006 and 2015 for a number of research journals. lighted the confusion that can exist when working with and
In some cases, I reviewed research papers that used autoethno- attempting to label the analysis of personal experience. In the
graphy as a method to explore a particular social phenomenon, paper, the author used the terms ‘‘autobiography,’’ ‘‘narrative,’’
while in other examples, I reviewed methodologically focused and autoethnography interchangeably throughout his or her
manuscripts (12 of the 15 were rejected by me and other manuscript, raising questions about the specific meanings of
reviewers). In drawing on my reviews to consider the state and these terms and causing me to wonder whether each of these
direction of autoethnography, I present my perspective using terms indicate approaches with unique forms and purposes or
only my own thoughts, words, and suggestions to the anonymous whether they can appropriately be subsumed under one label.
authors. I take care not to reveal any specific details regarding As I noted in my review, autobiography, narrative, and auto-
the topics of any of the papers or use any of the authors’ phrasing ethnography may be alike enough, with ‘‘the common point
as I illustrate my points, in order to preserve the anonymity of the being the use of personal experience to illuminate a structural,
authors whose papers I read. It is important to note that my cultural, or institutional issue’’ but whether this commonality is
choice of publication outlet for this article should not be taken enough to allow the interchangeable use of the terms is, as I see
as evidence that I have reviewed for this journal. it, questionable and worthy of continued discussion.
On the other hand, I noted in a number of my reviews a
tendency to apply the label autoethnography to purposes that
Insights From My Reviews might have been labeled otherwise before the idea of autoeth-
In many of the manuscripts pertaining to autoethnography that I nography rose to popularity. For example, one author referred
have reviewed, I have seen the high potential that is inherent in to her work as autoethnographic because she was writing about
this approach and the rich opportunities that exist for the emer- her self-reflections in the process of qualitative data analysis in
gence of unique perspectives on social phenomena. Some authors a specific research project. As I said to her, I ‘‘wonder if there is
have made it very clear that there are marginalized perspectives a line between what can be considered autoethnographic and
on certain topics that are given voice through autoethnography. what is perhaps more appropriately thought of as accounting
For example, two authors wrote about important life events and for self or locating oneself in the research.’’ Similarly, another
their encounters with the health system in dealing with these manuscript was essentially ‘‘a reflection on the research pro-
incidences. The authors were able to demonstrate that their cess.’’ Again, I expressed to the author my concerns about
respective topics had been understudied, especially from the using autoethnography as a method in his or her particular case.
patient’s perspective. Their papers offered the potential to inform While there are certainly blurred boundaries in research, most
health professionals about the patient experience and contribute autoethnographies deal with substantive topics/phenomena of
an informative perspective on how these particular medical issues sociological interest. In my review of these manuscripts,
4 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

I concluded that the reflexive analysis of research experiences rather than analyzing it, arguing instead that ‘‘abstraction is
should not be labeled as autoethnographic. Even though they what is needed to make a personal story culturally relevant.’’
serve an important purpose, they are essentially methodologi- I explained that his or her ‘‘message should be clearly stated
cal articles rather than explorations of substantive social issues. and the thematic areas of concern should be spelled out,’’
Another prominent and controversial use for autoethnogra- pointing out that ‘‘it’s not fair to the reader if you tell a literary
phy has been healing and therapy. This application was tale and then expect them to do something with it by guessing
reflected in a number of the manuscripts that I reviewed, which at what you mean.’’
created, for me, a level of discomfort. In my response to one Another methodological issue pertaining to some of the
author I asked, ‘‘How does therapy make a sociological con- autoethnographic texts now being produced relates to the dis-
tribution? I see the importance of using personal experience semination of autoethnographic findings. Some authors whose
but, in my estimation, the resolution of personal issues ought to work I reviewed proposed experimental or unconventional for-
occur in an entirely different context than an academic attempt mats and avenues for the sharing of personal experience. One
to add to social knowledge.’’ While I was careful to be respect- paper advocated for the use of specific performance-based dis-
ful and to honor the heartfelt stories of the authors in my com- semination strategies, which, as they were described in this
ments to them, I often felt as though I was being manipulated particular instance, had a strong potential to be offensive. The
by the writers who used evocative and painful descriptions of author’s claim was that like other forms of entertainment
their experiences in their texts. I felt constrained in my ability media, performance-based dissemination could make a power-
to make critical comments on the papers they had written ful social commentary. In this case, I had to ask:
because of the intense and personal nature of the stories, even
though the papers had been written explicitly for academic Is this really where we want sociological research to go?
purposes. There were also several moments where I was Comedy, fiction, movies, reality TV, etc. can be powerful
uncomfortable with the level of emotion and disclosure con- social commentaries but that does not make any of them
tained in the writing. I was led to ask, ‘‘Does autoethnography research and does imply that research needs to take on their
have to be painful? Do we really want to put our uncensored character, particularly when they are controversial and poten-
selves out there for all to see—in the name of research?’’ and I tially offensive.
wondered: ‘‘What topics might there be for autoethnography
that aren’t about personal redemption and healing?’’ Another author related autoethnographic research to other
forms of personal expression, including personal musings,
social networking, blogging, and reality shows. In response, I
Story, Analysis, and Dissemination argued that, while autoethnographic contributions can certainly
The emotional nature and therapeutic purposes of autoethno- be made in nontextual ways, some forms of personal expres-
graphy were heightened in some of the papers I read because of sion through performance ‘‘do not necessarily contain any ana-
the lack of analysis of the personal story. Time and again, I lytical insights and are not directed at using personal
asked authors to ‘‘provide some kind of analysis of the descrip- experience to make a sociological contribution.’’
tion of the experience to link the personal with the social,’’
which ‘‘would prevent the paper from appearing self-
indulgent, therapeutic, and egocentric.’’ Most manuscripts con-
Ethical Concerns
tained lengthy sections of story. In many cases, I found the Several of the manuscripts that I reviewed made me uneasy
narratives ‘‘to be very interesting and engaging and full of from an ethical point of view. In my comments to the authors, I
detail for analysis’’ and could ‘‘see a number of sociological usually noted that ‘‘ethical permissions in the traditional sense
themes within [them]’’ but I repeatedly felt compelled to sug- are not required’’ for autoethnography, but I also noted that
gest that ‘‘it would be more helpful to expand the discussion ‘‘there are always other characters in the story beyond the
and analysis.’’ In response to one manuscript about a signifi- author and it’s important to consider how they are represented
cant health-related experience, I noted that ‘‘I would really and included in the story,’’ especially given the ease which with
appreciate hearing what themes the author sees in this paper they could be identified in a text that describes a highly par-
and how she explicates and theorizes about them, and uses ticular experience. Usually I just suggested that the author offer
them to connect her personal experience with the broader social some assurance to the reader that other characters have con-
context so that knowledge is advanced.’’ sented to being depicted in the text and/or that steps have been
One manuscript in particular, in which the author discussed taken to protect their anonymity. However, in at least one
a negative life-altering event, frustrated me in its form and example, I was highly troubled by the amount of detail that
presentation. It was written in a literary, almost poetic fashion, was offered in the text about a character that was not the author.
which was somewhat cryptic and difficult to follow. As I said Rich details about the other person’s experience were shared,
to the author, ‘‘I was just eager to have some resolution to the without any indication that the person had or would have
foreshadowing and dramatic tension,’’ although that was never accepted such a telling of the story. As well, as I mentioned
fully accomplished from my perspective. I also challenged his earlier, I have been uncomfortable at times with the level of
or her claim that autoethnography is about telling the story personal disclosure and have asked, ‘‘At what point are we
Stahlke Wall 5

saying too much?’’ This is a question about research ethics as it questions. It seems to me that if ‘‘names provide ways of know-
pertains to the limits of disclosure about ourselves, an issue that ing—and being . . . are rooted in actions and give rise to specific
is scarcely considered in autoethnographic work. practices,’’ as Charmaz explains (p. 396), it is of vital impor-
Finally, given the emerging and as yet marginal status of tance that we clarify what we mean by the name autoethnogra-
autoethnography as a form of research, some authors have phy so we know what we intend to do with it and we are able to
taken a defensive stance in their writing. Sadly, some of these recognize it, teach it, use it, and defend it as something under-
defenses resemble ‘‘rants,’’ characterized by blanket state- standable. Do we mean for this to be about personal musings or
ments, accusations, pejorative labeling, and unsubstantiated is it ethnography?
opinions about convention and those who uphold it in the What we understand autoethnography to be dictates how we
academy. One manuscript I reviewed was confrontational, undertake it. This relates to one of my strongest concerns,
angry, and polemic throughout while, in another paper, the which is the lack of analysis that I see both in the manuscripts
author boldly suggested that autoethnographers should reject I review and in published papers that are described as autoeth-
conventional views altogether. In my responses, I have asked nographies. There are numerous definitions of autoethnogra-
how realistic or ethical it is to think that autoethnographers can phy and, although they arise from scholars on all points of the
do this and whether ‘‘there a way to advocate for this method continuum of evocative-to-analytic autoethnography, they all
without a total disregard for our context [and] without resorting refer in some way to a systematic approach using ethnographic
to attacking behavior.’’ In an academic environment where strategies, the linking of personal experience to social, cultural,
positivist and realist ideologies can be privileged, there is and political issues, and a critique of certain discourses within a
indeed much work to done to advocate for qualitative methods, cultural context with a vision and hope for change (Allen Col-
defend stories, and acknowledge the personal nature of linson, 2013; Allen Collinson & Hockey, 2005; Chang, 2008;
knowledge. However, as I said in my reviews, this can be Duncan, 2004; Ellis, 2004; Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011;
pursued ethically, with a respectful understanding of others’ Holman Jones, Adams, & Ellis, 2013b; Pelias, 2003; Sparkes,
perspectives and through the use of articulate and well- 2000). By name and definition, a connection to the ethno-
considered arguments. graphic research method is made. My comments on the manu-
scripts I reviewed reveal my assumption and belief
that autoethnography is a form of scholarly research. How,
Discussion then, is it possible to see presentation forms in the autoethno-
From an analysis of my reviews over the years, it is evident that graphic literature that are constituted entirely by unanalyzed
I am encouraging autoethnographic authors to move in a par- stories, poetry, and pages of dialogue? Is this not raw data that,
ticular direction by asking them to be clear about their purpose, when presented without analysis, fails to meet the stated pur-
provide a level of analysis, and attend to the ethical issues that pose of the method?
arise in this form of work. Interestingly, I see the same issues Examples of autoethnography are numerous. In the Hand-
arising for me in various already published autoethnographic book of ethnography (Holman Jones et al., 2013a), several
works, which further illustrate the state and trajectory of auto- exemplars are included, presumably as a way of illustrating the
ethnographic work and the important questions that must be characteristics of an excellent autoethnographic text. Virtually
asked, pondered, and addressed. Autoethnography as a method all of them are stories, poems, and dialogue with little or no
seems to be heading in a certain direction, toward the evoca- abstraction or connection to theory and literature. They deal
tive, formless, and unruly. I wish to speak to this by drawing with topics such as racial discourses, heteronormativity, abuse,
upon published examples as well as the existing methodologi- and daily habits but it is difficult to ascertain what they are
cal literature. actually about without reading each of them in their entirely
One of the key points I made in my reviews was the issue of and even after doing so, I am not sure I am right about them.
the naming and purposes of autoethnography. Indeed, I am not Similarly, Larrison (2010) presents a poem about participating
the only one to raise this issue, although my ongoing need to in a qualitative research course, which can be gleaned from the
comment on this matter in my reviews indicates that this issue abstract, which is almost the same length as the poem that
has not been resolved. Ellis and Bochner (2000) provide a very constitutes the autoethnography itself. Her stated purpose is
long list of ‘‘similarly situated terms’’ that fit within ‘‘the broad self-reflection to evoke emotional resonance and understanding
rubric of autoethnography’’ (p. 739). However, they acknowl- and to provide a glimpse into pedagogical processes. At
edge that the ‘‘meanings and applications of autoethnography approximately 125 words, it is indeed a glimpse and how it
have evolved in a manner that makes precise definition and contributes to learning and pedagogy is not quite clear.
application difficult’’ (p. 739). Kathy Charmaz (2006) notes Richardson’s (2008) ‘‘My dinner with Lord Esqy’’ provides
that ‘‘what stands as autoethnography remains unclear and con- another example to illustrate my concerns about level of anal-
tested . . . [and it] lumps interesting, boring, and revealing ysis in autoethnography. This ethnographic account of her own
memoirs, recollections, personal journals, stories, and ethno- experience of having dinner with royalty is essentially a short
graphic accounts under the same name’’ (p. 397). She asks story, which she argues displays hierarchical and cultural dif-
whether these are variants of the same genre and wonders ferences regarding disability, alcohol, politics, and love. How-
whether ethnography leaves at some point. These are also my ever, while these topics are touched on briefly and superficially
6 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

in the conversation that takes place in the story, they are not intention was not to evoke emotion or heal myself but to
connected in any way, as the keywords might suggest, to scho- ‘‘contribute to the discourse on international adoption through
larship on these topics, nor does the story illuminate these a personal but thematically organized and analytical narrative’’
concepts further. (Wall, 2012b, p. 320). A reviewer of my manuscript noted that I
I want to state clearly that I do not wish to dismiss all of the was able to use my experience in an ‘‘engaged but dispassio-
aforementioned works as useless or poor. As poetry and stories nate way’’ to explore gaps in the literature. He or she described
they are certainly beautiful, interesting, and/or engaging and I my paper as an excellent example of critical reflection in theory
respect the authors of them for their creativity and passion in building that would offer a strong contribution to ethics, social
conveying their experiences. My point here is that, regardless sciences, and professional practice.
of their quality or beauty, it may not be appropriate to refer to I may be judged a philistine for failing to appreciate the
them as autoethnographies. Poetry and stories have always beauty and emotion of the autoethnographies I critique in favor
existed and been important expressions of experience. How- of more conventional presentations of autoethnographic work.
ever, they are unanalyzed texts that are not systematic, do not I understand that ‘‘these scholars [evocative autoethnogra-
link personal experience with cultural issues, and do not expli- phers] have challenged accepted views about silent authorship
citly critique or even identify the discourses they wish to and author evacuated texts’’ (Sparkes, 2000, p. 22), which are
challenge. If the authors wish to use them to make linkages the kinds of texts that can be privileged within ‘‘an audit culture
between the micro and the macro, which is the stated purpose framed by neo-liberalism and scientific imperialism’’ (Sparkes,
of autoethnography, there is a need for thick description, 2013, p. 512). Richardson (2000) points out that writing forms
analysis, and theorizing. are instruments of power that, through language, define both
There are examples of autoethnography that do just this and, social organization and our sense of self. Autoethnographers
in doing so, make a clear contribution to scholarship. Andrew seek to realign that power by turning to writing that makes
Sparkes (1996) offers his story about going from elite athlete to evident the complexity of human lives through the eyes of an
a person permanently affected by inflammatory back disease. It individual. However, as autoethnography is increasingly inclu-
is a personal and emotional telling but one that is fully sup- sive of evocative and esoteric writing forms such as poetry and
ported by theory and connected to the literature in the sociology story, it produces a different kind of inaccessibility in writing.
of sport. In her highly theoretical and very personal exploration Poetry is often cryptic by nature and stories are layered with
of her experience at an annual witch camp, Calley Jones (2010) meaning. What is the justification for claiming that these enig-
links her experiences explicitly and richly to queer theory, matic, emotive, personal, unanalyzed texts are autoethno-
heteronormativity, and spirituality as a way of examining ‘‘a graphic research? In what way does producing and
leisure practice that extends beyond the conventional under- publishing these kinds of texts democratize writing and knowl-
standings of leisure research in hopes of illuminating what has edge production? Atkinson (2006) suggests that, in fact, it is a
previously been unseen’’ and showing the ‘‘importance of com- misrepresentation of academic history to claim that social
munal and culturally relevant leisure particularly for individu- scientists of the past have been forced into upholding an ideal
als and communities that do not see themselves reflected in the of impersonal and dispassionate fieldwork (p. 401). Anderson
dominant culture’’ (p. 269). (2006) traces a long history of social science that reveals the
On the subject of identities at work, Mischenko (2005) uses presence of the researcher in his or her own work. While it may
experience and poetry as data, which are analyzed in relation to be worthwhile to promote writing forms that increasingly
a poststructuralist, critical management lens. As she endea- acknowledge a human and involved researcher, does that
vored to ‘‘avoid creating an overly rational and dry text’’ require us to label poetry and stories as ethnographic research?
(p. 205), she produced an ‘‘intentionally unconventional’’ And is it not just another kind of power play to produce mys-
manuscript (p. 205) that ‘‘weave[s] [her] story in and out of terious, poignant texts and then ask a reader to process the
the theory to illustrate the potential interpretations of [her] emotion and guess at what they mean? To me, that falls quite
poem’’ (p. 210). While it is personal, reflective, and explora- far outside of the ‘‘ethnographic intent’’ (Wolcott, 1999).
tory, it loosely follows the method/findings/discussion pattern It might be easy to assume that if we turn to writing about
and is readable as a scholarly paper because of the format and ourselves, we do not need to concern ourselves with research
analytic interpretations and theorizing contained within it. Her ethics in the conventional sense. However, because the self
goal is not to expose herself but to address gaps in research on exists in relation to the world and is co-constituted by other
identity work in organizations and to expose, resist, and survive (Roth, 2009), it is not possible to avoid implicating others in the
certain managerial discourses and practices. In my own work, I telling of our own experiences (Tullis, 2013). Ethical guidance
have sought to contribute a previously unrepresented perspec- for autoethnographers is still emerging and was scarcely avail-
tive to the literature on international adoption. Although this able even a few short years ago when I began using this
literature is vast, there was no representation of my experience method. In the manuscripts I reviewed, I saw evidence of a
and perspectives in it. I used my unique positioning as a lack of awareness of ethics in autoethnography and a lack of
mother, a health care practitioner, and a sociologist to contrib- application of ethical principles in the work I reviewed. Despite
ute an alternative discourse to literature on a social practice that a lack of documented ethical guidance, I experienced powerful
significantly impacts people’s lives (Wall, 2012a, 2012b). My ethical dilemmas in my own autoethnographic work (Wall,
Stahlke Wall 7

2008); it surprises me that some of the authors whose work I This, as Denzin (2006) argues, is just ‘‘déjà vu all over again’’
reviewed over the years did not pause to consider how others (p. 419); it prevents autoethnography from offering something
were part of the writing they were producing. Nevertheless, the new. On the other hand, Ellis and Bochner (2006) and
topic of ethics has become a more prominent part of the meth- many of the authors in the Handbook of autoethnography
odological discussion in autoethnography (e.g., Chang, 2008; (Holman Jones et al., 2013a) show us a formless, evoca-
Muncey, 2010; Roth, 2009; Tolich, 2010; Tullis, 2013) and tive, literary method that, in the end, bears little or no
today’s autoethnographers can benefit from this development resemblance to its ethnographic origins and is ambiguous
in a way that perhaps the authors whose work I read earlier in its contributions.
could not. Eisner (1988) pointed out that knowledge is rooted in expe-
A more significant ethical concern around autoethnography rience and noted that personal experience requires a method for
that requires ongoing consideration is the risk to the writer/ its representation. The value of the personal viewpoint is that
researcher themselves. Autoethnographers can make them- ‘‘there is nothing completely idiosyncratic about a single per-
selves vulnerable by sharing their private stories (Tullis, sonality’’ (Stivers, 1993, p. 413); we are socially connected and
2013). Yet, conventional research ethics and research ethics constituted. Thus, autoethnography has tremendous potential
boards tend not to be concerned with the impact that the for building sociological knowledge by tapping into unique
research process can have on the researcher, both within qua- personal experiences to illuminate those small spaces where
litative research in general and within autoethnography specif- understanding has not yet reached. However, given the emer-
ically (Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen & Liamputtong, 2008; ging nature of this method, there is still much to learn about
Tullis, 2013). The trend toward evocative autoethnography how it ought to be done and what autoethnographers should
increases this risk to self as autoethnographers share stories aim to contribute. I have offered the foregoing observations
that are intended to be emotive, detailed, and confessional. from an analysis of my reviews and their connection to the
Given that printed texts live on in static form long after they literature as a way of stimulating further debate about the auto-
are written, it is vital that autoethnographic writers consider ethnographic method and raising questions that require further
their present and future vulnerability as life goes on and atti- consideration. In my estimation, if we are to act too conserva-
tudes and perspectives, both personal and social, change tively and hold fast to a traditional conception of the use of self
(Tolich, 2010; Tullis, 2013). This is especially true when auto- in research (minimal, background, self as only one actor among
ethnography as a method attracts people so strongly motivated many), such as that envisioned by Anderson (2006), we lose an
to share their stories of trauma, sexuality, unpopular opinions, opportunity to tap into legitimate and unique sources of
and unconventional activities, to name a few. How much do we knowledge and insight that come from a particular view of
want to and need to put ourselves out there forever and for all? one’s place in the world. That said, I do agree with Atkinson
In my own experience, I struggled with this, even within a topic (2006) that we lose the important goals of analysis and theo-
that is not taboo. I found that linking my experiences to theory rizing when undertaking passionate, evocative acts of story-
and literature assisted me in gauging my social position and telling and sense-making, such as described by Ellis and
evaluating my perspectives in a way that allowed me to partic- Bochner (2006).
ipate with respect for myself and my wider community, while A few others offer a similar message. Chang (2008, 2013)
still being able to say clearly what I needed to say and what explains how she takes a social science approach to autoethno-
only I could say. graphy and describes a conventional, systematic method that
I am advocating for an ethical and self-focused but analy- highlights personal experience within an analytical-interpretive
tical approach to autoethnography. Clearly, not everyone will process. Duncan (2004) expresses her belief in the value of
agree with my position. As I have noted, there is a polarization autoethnography to ‘‘externalize [her] inner dialogue’’ (p. 3) and
of perspectives on what autoethnography ought to be. Sparkes describe her intuitive understandings as a way of improving her
(2000) speaks of polarized reactions from his reviewers in decision-making at work. She is critical of an ‘‘overreliance on
response to his autoethnography, with some reviewers rejecting the potential of a personal writing style to evoke direct emotional
it as scholarship and others calling for more story and less responses in readers but offer no deeper levels of reflection or
theory. I have also experienced a range of responses to my analytic scholarship’’ (p. 11). Instead she advocates for a more
autoethnographic work (Wall, 2008). However, what I wish conservative approach that includes justification for the use of
to do in this article is draw attention to the middle ground, to the method, methodological description, multiple sources of evi-
encourage would-be autoethnographers to consider a balanced dence/data (e.g., journals, sketches, e-mails, screen prints), and a
perspective that lies between the warring factions of evocative clear account of the outcomes of the project and the clarity it
and analytic approaches to this method, one that captures the offers. Finally, Vryan (2006) advocates for a version of analytic
meanings and events of one life in an ethical way but also in a autoethnography that goes beyond enhanced researcher position-
way that moves collective thinking forward—a moderate auto- ing within traditional ethnographic work (as proposed by Ander-
ethnography. Anderson (2006) and Atkinson (2006) advocate son, 2006). Instead, Vryan envisions analytic autoethnography
for an analytic autoethnography that limits the use of self to as method that makes it possible to study the uniquely deep and
anything other than an enhanced level of researcher reflexivity rich experience of a single life, which, when analyzed, has social
and visibility within conventional ethnography (Vryan, 2006). relevance and utility.
8 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

After years of reviewing autoethnographic texts and follow- Duncan, M. (2004). Autoethnography: Critical appreciation of an
ing the literature, I felt increasingly compelled to speak into the emerging art. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3,
swirling polemics of autoethnographic methodology. Debates Article 3.
are seldom tame but perhaps there is a way forward by finding Eisner, E. (1988). The primacy of experience and the politics of
the middle ground. I believe in autoethnography, which uses method. Educational Researcher, 17, 15–20.
‘‘the power of one’’ to explore and critically analyze the com- Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about
plexity of social events or topics for the purpose of transforma- autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
tion and social justice (Gibbs, 2013). Commentators on both Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography:
sides of the methodological debate concerning autoethnogra- An overview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research/
phy have valid points to make. A moderate autoethnography Sozialforschung, 12, Article 10.
would reconcile the best of these ideas and combine the power Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narra-
of the personal perspective with the value of analysis and the- tive, reflexivity. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
ory, so that sociological understanding is advanced in ways it of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733–768). Thousand Oaks,
might never have otherwise been. CA: Sage.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2006). Analyzing analytic autoethnogra-
Declaration of Conflicting Interests phy. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 429–449.
Ettorre, E. (2005). Gender, older female bodies and autoethnography:
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Finding my feminist voice by telling my illness story. Women’s
Studies International Forum, 28, 535–546.
Gibbs, A. (2013). The power of one. Aotearoa New Zealand Social
Funding
Work, 25, 15–24.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- Hayano, D. (1979). Auto-ethnography: Paradigms, problems, and
ship, and/or publication of this article.
prospects. Human Organization, 38, 113–120.
Holman Jones, S., Adams, T. E., & Ellis, C. (2013a). Handbook of
References autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Allen Collinson, J. (2013). Autoethnography as the engagement of Holman Jones, S., Adams, T. E., & Ellis, C. (2013b). Introduction. In S.
self/other, self/culture, self/politics, and selves/futures. In S. Holman Jones, T. E. Adams, & C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of auto-
Holman Jones, T. E. Adams, & C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of auto- ethnography (pp. 17–47). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
ethnography (pp. 281–299). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Holt, N. L. (2001). Beyond technical reflection: Demonstrating the
Allen Collinson, J., & Hockey, J. (2005). Autoethnography: Self- modification of teaching behaviors using three levels of reflection.
indulgence or rigorous methodology? In M. J. McNamee (Ed.), Avante, 7, 66–76.
Philosophy and the sciences of exercise, health and sport: Critical Larrison, T. E. (2010). Gratitude. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 599.
perspectives on research methods (pp. 187–202). London, Eng- Laslett, B. (1999). Personal narratives as sociology. Contemporary
land: Routledge. Sociology, 28, 391–401.
Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contem- Mischenko, J. (2005). Exhausting management work: Conflicting
porary Ethnography, 35, 373–395. identities. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 19,
Atkinson, P. (1997). Narrative turn or blind alley? Qualitative Health 204–218.
Research, 7, 325–344. Muncey, T. (2005). Doing autoethnography. International Journal of
Atkinson, P. (2006). Rescuing autoethnography. Journal of Contem- Qualitative Methods, 4, Article 5.
porary Ethnography, 35, 400–404. Muncey, T. (2010). Creating autoethnographies. London, England:
Calley Jones, C. (2010). Playing at the queer edges. Leisure Studies, Sage.
29, 269–287. Pelias, R. J. (2003). The academic tourist: An autoethnography. Qua-
Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Walnut Creek, CA: litative Inquiry, 9, 369–373.
Left Coast Press. Richardson, L. (2000). New writing practices in qualitative research.
Chang, H. (2013). Individual and collaborative autoethnography as Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 5–20.
method. In S. Holman Jones, T. E. Adams, & C. Ellis (Eds.), Richardson, L. (2008). My dinner with Lord Esqy. Qualitative
Handbook of autoethnography (pp. 107–122). Walnut Creek, Inquiry, 14, 13–17.
CA: Left Coast Press. Roth, W.-M. (2009). Auto/ethnography and the question of ethics.
Charmaz, K. (2006). The power of names. Journal of Contemporary Forum: Qualitative Social Research/Sozialforschung, 10, Article
Ethnography, 35, 396–399. 38.
Denzin, N. K. (2006). Analytic autoethnography or déjà vu all over Sparkes, A. C. (1996). The fatal flaw: A narrative of the fragile body-
again. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 419–428. self. Qualitative Inquiry, 2, 463–494.
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. Sparkes, A. C. (2000). Autoethnography and narratives of self: Reflec-
(2008). Risk to researchers in qualitative research on sensitive tions on criteria in action. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 21–43.
topics: Issues and strategies. Qualitative Health Research, 18, Sparkes, A. C. (2013). Autoethnography as a mode of knowing and a
133–144. way of being. In S. Holman Jones, T. E. Adams, & C. Ellis (Eds.),
Stahlke Wall 9

Handbook of autoethnography (pp. 512–516). Walnut Creek, CA: Wall, S. (2012b). Ethics and the socio-political context of interna-
Left Coast Press. tional adoption: Speaking from the eye of the storm. Ethics and
Stivers, C. (1993). Reflections on the role of personal narrative in Social Welfare, 6, 318–332.
social science. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Wall, S. (2012c). Here, there be dragons: A practitioner explores
18, 408–425. feminist poststructuralist theory. Journal of Pedagogy, Pluralism
Tolich, M. (2010). A critique of current practice: Ten foundational & Practice, 4, Article 5. Retrieved from http://www.lesley.edu/
guidelines for autoethnographers. Qualitative Health Research, 20, journal-pedagogy-pluralism-practice/sarah-wall/here-they-be-
1599–1610. dragons/
Tullis, J. (2013). Self and others: Ethics in autoethnographic research. In Wall, S., & Shankar, I. (2008). Adventures in transdisciplinary learn-
S. Holman Jones, T. E. Adams, & C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of auto- ing. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 551–565.
ethnography (pp. 244–261). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Wallace, A. F. C. (1965). Driving to work. In M. E. Spiro (Ed.),
Vryan, K. D. (2006). Expanding analytic autoethnography and enhancing Context and meaning in cultural anthropology (pp. 277–292). New
its potential. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 25, 405–409. York, NY: The Free Press.
Wall, S. (2006). An autoethnography on learning about autoethnogra- Wallace, A. F. C. (1972). A day at the office. In S. T. Kimball & J. B.
phy. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, Article 9. Watson (Eds.), Crossing cultural boundaries: The anthropological
Wall, S. (2008). Easier said than done: Writing an autoethnography. experience (pp. 193–203). San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7, 38–53. Wolcott, H. F. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Walnut Creek,
Wall, S. (2012a). Re-thinking motherhood and kinship in interna- CA: AltaMira Press.
tional adoption. In F. Latchford (Ed.), Adoption and mothering Yang, M. M. C. (1945). A Chinese village. New York, NY: Columbia
(pp. 88–102). Bradford, ON: Demeter Press. University Press.