Autoethnography and Collaborative Autoethnography for Early-Career Researchers’ Professional Development and Empowerment: An Autoethnography

Abstract

This autoethnographic article aims to advocate for the use of autoethnography (AE) and collaborative autoethnography (CAE) as both methodological tools and avenues for professional development and empowerment among early-career researchers (ECRs). Through an exploration of the significance of AE and CAE, particularly for ECRs, this article underscores their value in decolonizing research practices and shaping the future of scholarly inquiry. Drawing on personal experience and relevant literature, the article discusses how these methodological approaches have played a pivotal role in the author’s maturation and establishment within academia. It delves into how, as methodological processes, AE and CAE empower ECRs in various ways: (1) amplifying ECR voices in academia; (2) cultivating sociological imagination, critical analytical skills, and scholarly confidence; (3) enhancing ECRs’ positionality and reflexivity in research; (4) fostering solidarity, liberation, and activism, particularly through CAE; and (5) providing publishing opportunities.

Keywords

autoethnography collaborative autoethnography decolonizing research early-career researcher (ECR)empowerment professional development reflexivity sociological imagination

Introduction

As an early-career researcher¹ (ECR) based in Aotearoa New Zealand (New Zealand hereafter), I have navigated the challenging terrain of academia in pursuit of permanent employment after completing my PhD. While extremely grateful for all the opportunities I have been given, I initially found myself on a precarious path, reliant on fixed-term contracts across multiple disciplines and geographic locations. Throughout this journey, my focus has remained steadfast on securing academic roles while concurrently building a track record of research through grant applications and publishing. It is a journey shared by many of my peers, all facing the triple challenges of career advancement, research development and making ends meet within the context of neoliberal university, in which fewer full-time long-term positions are available (Nature, 2017), and ECRs often experience precarity and uncertainty (Liu et al., 2023; Purvis et al., 2023).

As I quickly realized after completing my PhD in 2019, conducting empirical research beyond doctoral studies often poses significant financial and logistical hurdles for ECRs who may, for example, lose their university affiliation and library access. While many graduates continue working contracted teaching roles or leave academia, some fortunate individuals may join funded projects which have the potential to facilitate research opportunities and pave the way for further funding. Others in humanities, arts, and social sciences (HASS), like myself, also explore theoretical, self-reflective, and review research avenues that require minimal personal or external funding (see Pickering and Byrne, 2014). Through this approach, I have contributed conceptual and theory papers to the fields of disaster, language, and migration studies (Uekusa, 2018, 2019; Uekusa and Matthewman, 2022; Uekusa et al., 2022). In addition, I engaged in autoethnographic and collaborative autoethnographic research endeavors (Roy et al., 2021; Uekusa, 2022; Uekusa et al., 2024), which not only bolstered my research portfolio but also fostered intellectual and professional development as I transitioned from PhD student to junior academic, underscoring the importance of innovative research methodologies and methods in the absence of substantial funding. Indeed, these methodological approaches played a pivotal role in my maturation and establishment within academia. Most importantly, autoethnography (AE) and collaborative autoethnography (CAE) have been a form of empowerment for me.

This article aims to advocate for the use of AE and CAE as both methodological tools and avenues for professional development and empowerment among ECRs. While AE and CAE may not align with ‘traditional notion of scientific research’ methods, they offer numerous practical benefits (Denzin, 2000), especially for ECRs. As methodological processes, AE and CAE empower ECRs in various ways: (1) amplifying ECR voices in academia; (2) cultivating sociological imagination, critical analytical skills, and scholarly confidence; (3) enhancing ECRs’ positionality and reflexivity in research; (4) fostering solidarity, liberation, and activism, particularly through CAE; and (5) providing publishing opportunities. This autoethnographic article seeks to explore the significance of AE and CAE, particularly for ECRs, underscoring their value in decolonizing research practices and shaping the future of scholarly inquiry.

Contextualizing ECRs in the current academic landscape

ECRs can be vulnerable, navigating increasingly challenging academic environments, shaped particularly by the neoliberal turn in higher education. The corporatization and commercialization of academia, driven by free-market ideologies, have fundamentally reshaped the structure of universities, intensifying competition for limited resources and employment opportunities (Giroux, 2014; Kelly, 2022; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004). ECRs often find themselves in precarious positions, balancing short-term contracts, heavy teaching loads, and the relentless pressure to publish journal articles in a ‘publish or perish’ culture (Pickering and Byrne, 2014; Purvis et al., 2023). Although ECRs represent a large group of scholars and the majority of academic workforce globally (Heggeness et al., 2017), they are disproportionately affected by these systemic changes and challenges brought about by neoliberal policies.

In this neoliberalized academic landscape, performance metrics such as publication output, grant success, and teaching evaluations have become central to career advancement (Sparkes, 2021). These performance-based metrics not only shape individual career trajectories but also reinforce institutional hierarchies for ECRs trying to establish themselves within academia. Moreover, the increasing casualization of academic labor has further exacerbated the precariousness of their employment, as many ECRs are confined to fixed-term contracts, often with minimal job security or prospects for a long-term academic career (Stringer et al., 2018). The intersection of hierarchal structure, career precarity, research demands, and financial instability places strain on ECRs, affecting not only their professional development but also their well-being. This strain is often exacerbated for women and minority ECRs who may feel obliged to take on additional roles by serving on committees and to increase ‘diversity’ in universities (Joseph and Hirshfield, 2010). Unsurprisingly, this pressure has contributed to what Naddaf (2024) refers to as the ‘academic exodus’, with one-third of ECRs leaving academia within five years of publishing their first paper, and women being particularly more likely than men to leave research. I have witnessed this trend firsthand throughout my career, observing colleagues leave academia in search of better opportunities and pay in government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector.

Recent policy development in New Zealand further complicates the situation for ECRs. The New Zealand government announced its plan to lift the nation’s economy through ‘science and innovation’ and focus on ‘economic productivity’ in tertiary education (Collins and Simonds, 2024). This reflects broader neoliberal tendencies. These market-driven policies exacerbate existing disparities within the academic landscape, often marginalizing HASS, which are often seen as contributing less to economic goals (Lea, 2015). Consequently, ECRs in HASS face even more limited resources and funding opportunities, reinforcing a hierarchy of epistemologies where certain fields of study are undervalued. The vulnerabilities faced by ECRs, especially in these disciplines, have been further exacerbated for women, minority, Indigenous and migrant scholars, who contend with additional barriers such as gender oppression, institutionalized racism, and the dominance of Western-centric knowledge systems in academia (Fox Tree and Vaid, 2022). In New Zealand, over half of ECRs are oversea-born migrants (Nissen et al., 2020), many of whom face may additional barriers, for example, due to the hegemony of English or particular cultural norms. These intersecting forms of marginalization make it even more challenging for these groups to secure resources and recognition within a neoliberal academic framework.

What are AE and CAE?

AE has increasingly captured the attention of scholars from the social sciences and other disciplines. AE involves researchers using autobiographic and ethnographic data to gain insightful understanding of socio-cultural experiences and issues in society (Ellis et al., 2011; Stahlke Wall, 2016). This understanding is rooted in researchers’ socio-cultural experiences and perceptions (Ellis et al., 2011). It involves systematic research design, data collection, and critical analysis, making it more than just storytelling, with a view to improving research practice (see, e.g. Chang, 2008; Denzin, 2014; Ellis and Bochner, 2000; Ellis et al., 2011). Recognized as a creative qualitative method in the social sciences, AE requires researchers to engage in critical self-reflection. This approach serves as a systematic methodology, allowing researchers to use their personal stories and experiences to interpret connectivity between self and others, as well as between personal trouble and public issues (Anderson, 2006; Ellis, 2004; Francis and Hester, 2012). Anderson (2006), Denzin (2014), Ellis et al. (2011), and Rowlands (2022), among others, provide key insights into the methodological foundations of AE, emphasizing the importance of ‘reflexivity’ – critical reflection on our positionality and own research practice which is paramount in qualitative research (e.g. Bourdieu, 1990; Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992).

CAE shares AE’s fundamental principles but emphasizes inviting a community to collectively investigate shared stories and seeks to integrate individual narratives with the broader collective experiences (Blalock and Akehi, 2018). Unlike AE where researchers’ experiences serve as primary data (Ellis and Bochner, 2000), CAE pools researchers’ narratives to create a richer dataset sourced from multiple perspectives, enhancing the depth of socio-cultural understanding (Chang et al., 2013; Hernandez et al., 2017). Researchers engaging in CAE may collect personal memory data, conduct interviews with one another, observe, and analyze each other’s self-identities, or collect archival data related to each other’s experiences (Chang et al., 2013). CAE involves a collaborative effort among a group of researchers, fostering a collective exploration of shared experiences within a community or research team (see, for example, Roy et al., 2021; Uekusa et al., 2024) to deepen the understanding of complex social phenomena. Moreover, CAE offers unique opportunities for researchers to engage in reflexivity and dialogue, facilitating a richer analysis of the interplay between individual and collective experiences. By harnessing the collective wisdom and insights of diverse voices, CAE contributes to a comprehensive understanding of complex social dynamics and lived experiences. Especially amid the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, traditional methods of qualitative research such as in-person interviews, focus groups, and participant observation encountered significant obstacles. In this context, both AE and CAE emerged as invaluable tools, providing researchers with structured frameworks to gather and analyze self-reflective data, thereby documenting individuals’ social experiences during the pandemic (Roy and Uekusa, 2020; see Uekusa, 2022 for an empirical example).

AE and CAE, like other action-oriented methods, can serve as a critique of and an alternative to the dominant research paradigms, offering a way for scholars in any fields to reclaim agency and contribute to the decolonization of academic spaces. Decolonizing research is particularly critical in fields like disaster research, which is one of my main fields of research. Scholars such as Gaillard (2019) and Cadag (2022) have advanced debates on decolonizing disaster research and methodologies, emphasizing the need to recognize diverse knowledge systems. However, the field continues to struggle with the traditional hierarchies of knowledge production that privileges ‘hard’ science and Western epistemologies while attempting to understand human experiences of disasters. In this context, through action-oriented and non-traditional research methods such as AE and CAE, disaster social scientists contribute to diversifying and decolonizing knowledge systems (see, for example, Ewen and Pelling, 2024; Mehdipour et al., 2024). Action research, rooted in the idea of research as an action-oriented tool for change, is inherently participatory and transformative. Particularly, CAE shares this ethos in their focus on collaborative, self-reflective inquiry (Lozic, 2024), and both AE and CAE offer an alternative to the ‘objective’ and ‘scientific’ research practices that continue to dominate academia by legitimizing minoritized and marginalized researchers’ knowledge and experiences (see, for example, Fa’avae, 2018; Wall, 2008). This approach aligns with calls to decolonize knowledge production, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and valuing diverse epistemologies (Nisa-Waller and Piercy, 2024; Pham and Gothberg, 2020; Smith, 2012).

However, these methodologies also present challenges such as the potential for self-indulgence and issues of objectivities, representativeness, and generalizability (see, for example, Lapadat, 2017; Philaretou and Allen, 2006; Sparkes, 2002). To mitigate these concerns, researchers must engage in critical and reflexive qualitative practices, maintaining ethical standards and critically interrogating their own positionality, biases, and assumptions throughout the research process (see, for example, Dahal and Luitel, 2022; Lapadat, 2017). By adopting a reflexive stance and assuming responsibility for the analysis and interpretation of data, researchers can navigate the inherent complexities of AE and CAE, thereby enhancing the accountability and credibility of their research outcomes.

Conceptual framework and research method: AE as a decolonizing and action-oriented research tool

This research employs AE as a decolonizing research practice and action-oriented tool, rooted in the broader discourse of diversifying and decolonization of knowledge in academic research (Nisa-Waller and Piercy, 2024; Pham and Gothberg, 2020; Smith, 2012). While I am not an Indigenous scholar, as a scholar from an ‘Indigenous/Tribal, minority and minoritized languages and peoples’ (ITM)² background in a Western institution, AE provides me with a means to challenge the hegemony of English and dominant Western epistemologies and to amplify marginalized voice (which will be elaborated in the following section). In this sense, AE goes beyond simply documenting and reflecting on personal experiences to offer a platform for potentially initiating change in academia (see also Lozic, 2024). By foregrounding the personal experiences of researchers, AE can disrupt the traditional hierarchies of knowledge production and allow ECRs, especially ITMs, to engage in critical self-reflection and contribute alternative perspectives in scholarly inquiry.

To further clarify the theoretical foundation of this article, my autoethnographic study draws upon an eclectic framework that integrates Mills’ (1959) ‘sociological imagination’, Bourdieu’s reflexivity, and decolonial thought. Bourdieu’s concept of reflexivity informs my critical engagement with my own positionality as an ITM ECR, highlighting the interplay between structural constraints and individual agency within a Western neoliberal academic context. Mills’ sociological imagination, a foundational concept in sociology, strengthens my analysis by connecting personal struggles with broader institutional and systemic conditions, positioning my individual experience within the wider academic and social landscapes. While these critical theories originate within Western knowledge systems, they align with and complement decolonial perspectives which, as discussed by Smith (2012) and other decolonial scholars, provide a critical lens for challenging the hegemony of Western epistemologies in academic knowledge production. By weaving together these theoretical perspectives, this conceptual framework shapes my methodological approach in this article, where AE serves as both a means of self-reflexive inquiry and a tool for challenging dominant research paradigms, particularly within the Western, neoliberal, and hierarchical university contexts.

In conducting this autoethnographic study, I employed a critical, flexible approach to document my personal academic journey as an ECR navigating academia which started back in 2014 when I decided to pursue my PhD in New Zealand. I am a migrant scholar originally from Japan and have lived in the United States, New Zealand, and Denmark for education and academic employment so far. The methodology primarily involved recalling and analyzing key events and moments in my academic journey, particularly those that involved challenges related to career precarity, employment insecurity, publication, and grant pressures, and experience of marginalization as a scholar from an ITM background. Through critical self-reflection, I contextualized my personal experience and observation within broader social and institutional structures, drawing on critical sociological theories such as reflexivity and sociological imagination, allowing me to connect personal struggles with public issues. The data were derived from autobiographical memory and professional and personal interactions over the years since the start of my PhD in 2014, and my analysis focused on understanding how my experience has intersected with structural issues in the contemporary academic landscape. While this method is inherently subjective, it offers a nuanced understanding of the experience of one ECR, contributing to a decolonizing perspective in research.

Why do AE and CAE matter to ECRs?

In the years transitioning from PhD student to junior academic, I have published a couple of AE and CAE papers (Roy et al., 2021; Uekusa, 2022; Uekusa et al., 2024), alongside a methodological discussion paper (Roy and Uekusa, 2020). In trying to publish the four abovementioned AE and CAE papers, I encountered desk rejections and rejections after review when I submitted them to journals specializing in disaster, migration and communication studies. I resubmitted the same papers two to three times, and, each time, editor and reviewer comments indicated that these rejections stemmed from the perception that personal accounts lack ‘scientific’ evidence, being deemed unscientific, biased, and devoid of objective truths. While I acknowledge this criticism, I find it challenging to persuade scholars – particularly those outside of sociology and HASS disciplines – of the validity and intellectual value of AE and CAE as legitimate research methodologies. I contend that, as noted above, researchers should acknowledge and appreciate the significance of AE and CAE, especially in the context of decolonizing research. The main reasons for this belief include not only the intellectual merit of these practices in shaping the future of scholarly inquiry, but also the purpose of professional development and empowerment for academics, especially ECRs.

AE and CAE amplify marginalized ECR voices in academia and offer alternative perspectives

Aligning with the main reason why I opted for the use of AE in this article, AE and CAE can serve as powerful (decolonizing) tools for amplifying the voices of ECRs within academia and empowering them within scholarly discourse, especially if they are from Indigenous, minority/minoritized, migrant or marginalized backgrounds (Fa’avae, 2018; Nisa-Waller and Piercy, 2024). By offering a tool for ECRs to share their unique stories, critical insights, intellectual ideas and alternative perspectives, AE and CAE can contribute to a more diverse, inclusive, equitable, multicultural, and multilingual scholarly landscape (e.g. Brion and Rogers-Shaw, 2022; Miller et al., 2023; Nisa-Waller and Piercy, 2024; Valdovinos et al., 2023). This is particularly crucial for ECRs who may not yet have established voices in academia.

We are seeing increasing examples of self-reflection pieces by women of color, minority and Indigenous scholars in academia (e.g. Fa’avae, 2018; Miller et al., 2023; Nisa-Waller and Piercy, 2024; Valdovinos et al., 2023). Similarly, publishing a self-reflection paper on my own experience of ‘disaster linguicism’ (Uekusa, 2019) in an international journal (Uekusa, 2022) gave me a voice and identified me as one of the ITM scholars in the field of disaster, language, and migration studies where ITMs are often underrepresented. The concept of disaster linguicism refers to the language-related discrimination and communication challenges that arise in disaster contexts, particularly affecting ITMs, and was developed by drawing on the experiences of study participants in my doctoral research following the 2011 Canterbury Earthquakes and Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami (see Uekusa, 2019 for more details). While the concept was developed through the perceived experiences of study participants, I had a unique opportunity to find myself personally experiencing disaster linguicism during the pandemic in Denmark, an unfamiliar cultural and linguistic context, where I encountered language communication challenges (Uekusa, 2022).

This experience highlights how the ITMs’ personal narratives can be used to shed light on structural disadvantages; in this case, the underrepresented issues of disaster linguicism and the challenges that ITM communities face in disaster contexts. As I argue (Uekusa, 2019, 2022), ITMs’ disaster experiences should be understood through a critical lens of ‘linguicism’ (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2015) as language can be a significant source of institutionalized, interpersonal, and internalized oppression in disaster contexts. With the hegemony of English, particularly, in academia (and other de facto/dominant languages in other countries), ITMs’ experience of (disaster) linguicism is often minimized to ‘inconvenience’ and ‘language barriers’ and often overlooked by non-ITM researchers (Phillipson, 2019; Uekusa, 2009, 2022). Therefore, this alternative perspective from my AE is significant, amplifying voices that have historically been silenced or marginalized – and possibly contributing to the decolonization of research practice (see Miller et al., 2023; Nisa-Waller and Piercy, 2024; Valdovinos et al., 2023 for empirical examples of self-reflection pieces delving into gendered and exclusionary practices within academia).

As detailed above, Indigenous, minority/minoritized, migrant, and marginalized ECRs, through AE and CAE, can employ standpoint theory (Harding, 1991) to challenge oversimplifications and provide nuanced and balanced insights into the complexities of social phenomenon such as disaster linguicism. This practice can offer a more comprehensive understanding of the experiences and perspectives of ITM communities. Ultimately, by centering their lived experiences, ITM ECRs can play a crucial role, offering alternative narratives that challenge dominant discourses perpetuating inequalities or exclusionary practices within academia, instead of acting as ‘cultural brokers’ for non-ITM researchers who may lack cultural competency and linguistic proficiency (Jezewski, 1990). Therefore, if ITM ECRs with high cultural competency and linguistic proficiency have lived experiences of, for example, language communication and exclusion in disasters, they should seize the opportunity to use AE and CAE to give voice to themselves and their ITM communities. In doing so, they not only contribute meaningfully to academic knowledge but also challenge the hegemony of English and Eurocentric knowledge production systems. Thus, in certain situations where ITM scholars, especially ECRs, have lived experiences related to their research topics, AE and CAE empower ECRs to reclaim agency over their narratives, challenge dominant discourses, and contribute to scholarly discourse in that reflect their unique lived experiences and perspectives.

AE and CAE as the development of sociological imagination and critical thinking

Besides advancing knowledge through offering alternative views and challenging dominant discourses, AE and CAE facilitate the development and application of sociological imagination and critical thinking among students and scholars including ECRs. In undergraduate-level introductory sociology courses, instructors often assign socio-autobiographical essays prompting students to reflect on biography (slice of their life) and analyze its interconnections with broader social structures using the sociological imagination (Cook, 2014; Evangelista et al., 2023). This self-reflective exercise encourages students to think sociologically, exploring how larger social forces shape their personal experiences and life trajectories. Personally, I have found such assignments enrich students’ sociological imagination and have implemented this teaching strategy across various sociology courses, including a sociology of health class where students reflected on the intersection of their personal troubles and structural forces in the COVID-19 pandemic context. Denzin (2014: 5–6) notes that this methodology enables examination of how individual private troubles intersect with public issues – a critical skill for students and scholars across HASS disciplines. Grading students’ autobiographical assignments not only allowed me to gauge the development of their sociological imagination but also provided me with opportunities to facilitate continuous improvement in my own sociological perspectives (see also Cook, 2014, for this benefit).

Beyond its pedagogical utility for undergraduate students, AE and CAE can also be instrumental in enhancing ECRs’ critical analytical skills and scholarly confidence (Cook, 2014; Miyahara and Fukao, 2022). This is because a high level of theoretical engagement and critical perspective is imperative in AE and CAE. As noted earlier, without strong theoretical grounding, these methodologies risk degenerating into mere storytelling, devoid of scholarly depth. Indeed, my own research journey, particularly incorporating Mills’ and Bourdieu’s theories into my AE and CAE, has been transformative. When I conducted my AE, self-reflecting on my experience of disaster linguicism in Denmark (Uekusa, 2022), it was not easy to avoid self-indulgence, self-pity and self-victimization. However, particularly Bourdieu’s concepts of practice and reflexivity allowed me to understand how my experience was shaped through the intersection of field and the package of habitus and capital³ that I possessed and had access to in any given point of my life (Roy et al., 2021). Indeed, these theories have provided a foundational framework for my intellectual growth and guiding me through the complexities of autoethnographic and collaborative autoethnographic research processes. AE and CAE have afforded me the opportunity to apply Bourdieu’s theories and sociological imagination and deepen my critical analysis, thereby enriching my scholarly contributions (see also Reed-Danahay, 2017). Thus, through theoretical engagement and critical reflection, these methodologies offer a pathway to deeper understanding and meaningful contributions to the sociological discourse.

Enhancing ECR’s positionality and critical reflexivity through AE and CAE

Building upon the preceding discussions, AE and CAE can play a pivotal role in fostering critical reflexivity among ECRs, thereby enriching the depth of scholarly inquiry (Grosse, 2019; Kamlongera, 2023; Miyahara and Fukao, 2022). In addition to promoting the development of critical reflexivity among qualitative researchers, AE and CAE also reinforce the benefit of ‘insiderness’ in qualitative research and make ECRs consider their own positionality (Brion and Rogers-Shaw, 2022; Grosse, 2019; Maydell, 2010; Rowlands, 2022). In my own research journey thus far, I have never unequivocally felt like an ‘insider’ to any of the social groups I have studied; I have always been an ‘outsider’ researcher. However, it is through my AE and CAE (Roy et al., 2021; Uekusa, 2022; Uekusa et al., 2024) that I have experienced a profound sense of ‘insider’ perspective. This ‘insider’ perspective is particularly crucial in qualitative research, where understanding the nuances of social contexts and subjective experiences is paramount.

While qualitative researchers often strive to achieve this depth of knowledge through methods such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, ethnography, and participant observation, critics of insiderism pose a critical question: can qualitative researchers access and understand situated knowledge in the truest sense? (e.g. Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992; DeVault, 1999; Harding, 1991). Researchers may strive to adopt an insider perspective, as they occupy specific positions within society and possess certain social identities and privileges that shape their access to and understanding of situated knowledge (e.g. Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). Furthermore, qualitative researchers interpret data collected using the abovementioned methods based on their own theoretical frameworks, perspectives, experiences, and biases, which can influence their understanding of situated knowledge (see, for example, Creswell and Poth, 2017; Guba and Lincoln, 1982). Despite the potential benefits of the researcher’s role as an ‘insider’, the over-mystification of insiderness does not always allow qualitative researchers to grasp the complexity and multifaceted nature of human experiences and social contexts (Ellis et al., 2011).

In line with such debates, AE and CAE embrace the concept of situated knowledge and subjective truths, acknowledging the validity of personal perspectives in shaping knowledge. While researchers should avoid overemphasizing individualism in AE and CAE (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992; Stahlke Wall, 2016), by incorporating rich personal narratives, AE and CAE offer unique insights into lived experiences, thereby deepening our understanding of complex human experiences and social phenomena. Therefore, if ECRs have the opportunity to share their lived experiences, such as during a disaster or migration journey, they should leverage their insider status to provide rich personal narratives through AE and CAE. This approach may offer deeper insights than studying other people’s experiences, which may be oversimplified and filtered through selected theoretical lenses. This approach is particularly aligned with the ongoing effort to decolonize research practices by amplifying marginalized voices and perspectives (see, for example, Nisa-Waller and Piercy, 2024; Smith, 2012).

In AE and CAE, reflexivity is crucial. For Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992), self-reflexivity should not simply focus on the qualitative researcher’s feeling about fieldwork or study participants, nor on validating their credentials as field workers, but should also acknowledge the researcher’s positionality. Reflexivity is a methodological approach which involves critically examining one’s own position within the academic field of knowledge production, aiming not for objectivity over subjectivity nor for individualism, but to understand the artificial division between these two categories (see Reed-Danahay, 2017; Stahlke Wall, 2016). With AE and CAE, researchers can develop reflexivity and move beyond the insider-outsider dualism (Brion and Rogers-Shaw, 2022; Reed- Danahay, 2017).

The idea of insider and outsider researchers in sociology has long been a topic of discussion. Merton (1972: 21) approached this dichotomy from a structuralist perspective, defining insider as members of specific groups and collectivities, while outsiders are the nonmembers (see also Merton 1968 for further discussion on the boundaries between these groups and complexities of these concepts). Despite ongoing debates surrounding insiderism in qualitative research (e.g. Chavez, 2008), Rose (1997, cited in Mullings, 1999: 348) highlighted the inherent challenge:

No researcher is able to occupy the same position as those who are the subjects of his/her research, yet the unavoidable distance that this relationship [between the researcher and the researched] creates is paradoxically the one that researchers seek to overcome through transparent reflexivity.

Following this line of reasoning, achieving insider status in its truest sense, even partially, is arguably unattainable, except through AE and CAE (see Chavez, 2008 for the concept of total and partial insiders). Expanding on this notion, I argue that AE and CAE offer researchers a unique opportunity to be insiders of the study populations, bridging the gap between insider and outsider perspectives. By immersing themselves in their own experiences and reflecting critically on their positionality within research contexts, researchers can attain a level of insight and understanding that traditional outsider perspectives may lack. This deep introspection and reflexivity enable ECRs to better understand and navigate the complexities of their roles and relationships within the research setting, ultimately enhancing the richness and depth of ECRs’ ongoing and future scholarly contributions.

CAE as a stress-coping mechanism, and opportunity for solidarity, liberation, and activism

Another significant merit of AE and CAE pertains specifically to CAE. Engaging in discussions within a research team about our personal experiences, perceptions and feelings – a fundamental aspect of the CAE research process – can serve as a crucial stress-coping mechanism and a catalyst for collective empowerment and action, especially for ECRs. CAE advocates such as Lapadat (2017: 599) emphasize this often-overlooked aspect. Depending on the research topic, it can provide a supportive, trustworthy and therapeutic network of equally vulnerable colleagues, offering invaluable emotional support and a sense of empowerment, particularly when researchers study sensitive topics or navigate unsafe situations (see, for example, Liu et al., 2023; Miller et al., 2023; Nordbäck et al. 2022; Valdovinos et al., 2023). Thus, CAE can readily evolve into a means for researchers to collectively manage stress and cultivate resilience. This aspect holds particularly significance for many ECRs whose futures may be uncertain.

Reflecting on our CAE of migration and education experiences as international PhD students in New Zealand (Roy et al., 2021), my colleagues and I were able to connect our personal experiences with broader structural social forces. Through this process, we interpreted our lived experiences using critical theories, particularly Bourdieu’s capital, field, and habitus theories (please see Roy et al., 2021 for detailed research process and approach). This CAE not only contributed to migration and social mobility literature, focusing on international students’ multidimensional mobilities and their role in knowledge production, but also aided us in coping with the stressors and strains associated with being minority migrant PhD students in New Zealand – such as experiencing downward social mobility, encountering racism and linguicism, and facing precarious academic work (see, for example, Brown and Jones, 2013; Forbes-Mewett and Sawyer, 2016; Leung, 2014, 2017 for similar empirical examples). Without our CAE, I might have succumbed to self-pity; however, our CAE helped me shift away from self-pity and feel proud of navigating through our doctoral education and the additional burden of being ITM international PhD students in New Zealand. It served as a stress-coping mechanism for me and my colleagues, allowing us to share similar experiences, feelings, and perceptions and, without needing to worry about being judged, express our emotions to others who could understand. This practice fostered solidarity, lifelong friendships and professional bonds.

Expanding on this aspect, CAE has been used as an action-oriented methodological tool for exploring opportunities for solidarity, liberation, and activism (see Chan et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2023; Miller et al., 2023; Shapiro and Atallah-Gutiérrez, 2021). While I do not have any personal experience in this area, I have observed close colleagues undertaking CAE as a methodological tool for academic activism (see, for example, Oldfield et al., 2021; Simpson et al., 2023). I do not intend to speak on behalf of my colleagues, but their CAEs are clear examples of how CAE provides ECRs (and any researchers) not only a means of reflexive inquiry but also an actionable tool for challenging the status quo. By explicitly linking academic work, ECRs’ personal experiences (e.g. navigating the challenges associated with precarious and casualized academic employment) and advocacy, CAE as an actionable tool not only empowered them and boosted their self-esteem but also provided avenues for solidarity and academic activism (Oldfield et al., 2021). A collective of ECRs and graduate students initiated the Tertiary Education Action Group Aotearoa (TEAGA),⁴ and, through CAE, they critically reflected on their experiences as postgraduate students, PhD candidates, recent graduates and other ECRs. This enabled them to critically reflect on and address the structural issues within academia such as racism, gender oppression, precarious work and academic exploitation, while also amplifying their voice in academia and the public to advocate for systemic changes

AE and CAE as publishing opportunities

Last but not least, AE and CAE can offer ECRs increased publishing opportunities. As noted earlier, the lack of research and publishing support for ECRs can hinder career development in an era where academic success is often measured by the imperative to ‘publish or perish’ (Oldfield et al., 2021; Pickering and Byrne, 2014). While University of Zürich’s withdrawal from the global university ranking systems (University of Zürich, 2024) may signal a shift, the continued emphasis on publications as measures of research impact underscore the ‘corporatised managerialist era’ of academic publishing (Norrie, 2012). In many academic settings, the pressure to ‘publish or perish’ extends to PhD students, who are often expected to produce publications during their candidature (Lee and Kamler, 2008; Robins and Kanowski, 2008; Wilson, 2002). Some universities offer the option to complete a PhD dissertation/thesis with a set number of peer-reviewed articles published in journals, which is common in certain disciplines (e.g. business and science).

While acknowledging the challenges of the academic publishing landscape, I can also see benefits in publishing. For me, publishing during the PhD phase developed my CV and possibly helped establish my reputation as an emerging scholar, opening doors to future opportunities including funding and academic jobs (see also Höhmann, 2023). However, ECRs frequently encounter challenges in planning and conducting empirical research beyond their doctoral studies, particularly due to constraints such as limited funding opportunities. While securing a postdoctoral fellowship and a position in a funded project offered me avenues to build a research track record, these opportunities are not equally accessible to ECRs across the competitive and hierarchal academic landscape.

In this context, AE and CAE emerge as crucial research tools for ECRs, especially those with limited access to funding and the opportunity to conduct costly empirical studies. Drawing on my own experiences, AE and CAE have been instrumental in developing my research profile (Roy et al., 2021; Uekusa, 2022; Uekusa et al., 2024). While my primary motivation for advocating for AE and CAE is not merely to increase publishing opportunities, it is undeniable that these methods have significantly empowered both me and my colleagues. By using AE and CAE, we have been able to build up a track record of research, thereby enhancing our academic credibility, and to increase our confidence to navigate the complexity of today’s competitive academic landscape. However, it is important to recognize that while AE and CAE can also empower ECRs by providing more opportunities to publish, this form of empowerment also reinforces the prevailing ‘publish or perish’ culture in academia. This dynamic, while empowering ECRs, risks co-opting these methodologies into the neoliberalized academic landscape, potentially diluting their critical and innovative edge. I argue that it is therefore important for ECRs to be mindful of how they use these methodological tools – not only to build academic profiles but also to challenge structural inequalities, as these methodologies were originally intended.

Concluding notes

The journey from doctoral student to junior academic is often fraught with challenges, particularly navigating the complex terrain of academic publishing and establishing one’s voice within scholarly discourse. As evidenced by my own experience and those of my colleagues, AE and CAE as legitimate research methodologies offer valuable pathways for ECRs to assert their scholarly identities, even in the face of skepticism and resistance in certain academic circles. Despite encountering desk rejections and criticisms which are common hurdles in the academic publishing landscape, I contend that these methodologies hold immense value for ECRs, amplifying marginalized voices, fostering critical thinking, enhancing reflexivity, providing venues for solidarity, liberation and activism, and offering unique opportunities for publication.

The strength of AE and CAE, as discussed in this article, lies in their multifaceted contributions to the professional development and empowerment of ECRs. Beyond their value as publication opportunities, these methodologies, as actionable tools for decolonizing research practices, enable researchers to engage meaningfully with critical scholarship, challenge dominant academic discourses, and promote social justice. The application of AE and CAE can provide ECRs with unique opportunities and means to reflect on their positionality within academia, offering an alternative route to traditional metrics-driven scholarship.

Furthermore, these methodologies are instrumental in contributing to the decolonization of academic research. By centering personal narratives and lived experiences of ECRs, especially among ITMs, AE and CAE challenge exclusionary practices and open the door to more inclusive and decolonial forms of knowledge production. This article posits that AE and CAE are not only research methods but also instruments of resistance and resilience, empowering ECRs to critique and subvert the systemic inequalities that persist in the contemporary academic landscape.

As ECRs like myself navigate the complexities of academic life, it is important to recognize the transformative potential of AE and CAE. These qualitative methodologies, coupled with critical social theories, not only empower individual researchers in various ways but also contribute to the broader effort to decolonize research and academia. By positioning personal experiences within larger social, cultural, economic, and political contexts, ECRs can leverage AE and CAE to engage in reflexive, meaningful scholarship that can challenge structural inequalities and reshape the future of academic inquiry.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge my colleagues and friends who have shared the journey as ECRs, supporting and inspiring each other through our collaborative autoethnographies. Special thanks to Ritu Parna Roy, Jeevan Karki, Kien Nguyen-Trung, Daniel Lorenz, and Sivendra Michael for their friendship and insights. I would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their time and thoughtful feedback.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Shinya Uekusa

Notes

Author biography

Shinya Uekusa is a disaster sociologist and migration scholar, and currently a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Canterbury in Aotearoa New Zealand. His research interests are in disaster sociology, migration, linguicism and linguistic minorities, and gerontology.

References

Anderson

(2006) ‘Analytic autoethnography’. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35(4): 373–395.

Blalock

Akehi

(2018) ‘Collaborative autoethnography as a pathway for transformative learning’. Journal of Transformative Education 16(2): 89–107.

Bourdieu

(1990) The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu

Wacquant

(1992) An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Brion

Rogers-Shaw

(2022) ‘Becoming culturally proficient qualitative researchers by crossing geographic and methodological borders’. The Qualitative Report 27(10): 2091–2112.

Brown

Jones

(2013) ‘Encounters with racism and the international student experience’. Studies in Higher Education 38(7): 1004–1019.

Cadag

(2022) ‘Decolonising disasters’. Disasters 46(4): 1121–1126.

Chan

Harrichand

Anandavalli

, et al. (2021) ‘Mapping solidarity, liberation, and activism: A critical autoethnography of Asian American leaders in counseling’. Journal of Mental Health Counseling 43(3): 246–265.

Chang

(2008) Autoethnography as method. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

10.

Chang

Ngunjiri

Hernandez

(2013) Collaborative autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

11.

Chavez

(2008) ‘Conceptualizing from the inside: Advantages, complications, and demands on insider positionality’. The Qualitative Report 13(3): 474–494.

12.

Collins

Simonds

(2024) ‘Lifting economy through science, tertiary sectors’. New Zealand Government. Available at: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/lifting-economy-through-science-tertiary-sectors

13.

Cook

(2014) ‘“To actually be sociological”: Autoethnography as an assessment and learning tool’. Journal of Sociology 50(3): 269–282.

14.

Creswell

Poth

(2017) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Dahal

Luitel

(2022) ‘Understanding and encountering the ethics of self and others in autoethnography: Challenging the extant and exploring possibilities’. The Qualitative Report 27(12): 2671–2685.

16.

Denzin

(2000) ‘Aesthetics and the practices of qualitative inquiry’. Qualitative Inquiry 6(2): 256–265.

17.

Denzin

(2014) Interpretive Autoethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

DeVault

(1999) Liberating Method: Feminism and Social Research. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

19.

Ellis

(2004) The Ethnographic I: A Methodological Novel About Autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

20.

Ellis

Adams

Bochner

(2011) ‘Autoethnography: An overview’. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 12(1): 10.

21.

Ellis

Bochner

(2000) ‘Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject’. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 733–768.

22.

Evangelista

Hutchins

Ragon

(2023) ‘Bringing autoethnography to undergraduates: An interdisciplinary course-cluster and lab at Oberlin College and conservatory’. Journal of Autoethnography 4(2): 236–254.

23.

Ewen

Pelling

(2024) ‘Facilitating the voices of people with disabilities in disaster research: A case study of participatory timeline methodologies in Sindhupalchok Nepal’. Disaster Prevention and Management 34(1): 9–23.

24.

Fa’avae

(2018) ‘Giving voice to the unheard in higher education: Critical autoethnography, Tongan males and educational research’. MAI Journal 7(2): 126–138.

25.

Forbes- Mewett

Sawyer

(2016) ‘International students and mental health’. Journal of International Students 6(3): 661–677.

26.

Fox Tree

Vaid

(2022) ‘Why so few, still? Challenges to attracting, advancing, and keeping women faculty of color in academia’. Frontiers in Sociology 6: 792198.

27.

Francis

Hester

(2012) An Invitation to Ethnomethodology: Language, Society and Social Interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

Gaillard

(2019) ‘Disaster studies inside out’. Disasters 43(Suppl. 1): S7–S17.

29.

Giroux

(2014) Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.

30.

Grosse

(2019) ‘An insider’s point of view: Autoethnography in the construction industry’. Construction Management and Economics 37(9): 481–498.

31.

Guba

Lincoln

(1982) ‘Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry’. Educational Communication and Technology 30(4): 233–252.

32.

Harding

(1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking From Women’s Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

33.

Heggeness

Gunsalus

KTW

Pacas

, et al. (2017) ‘The new face of US science’. Nature 541(7635): 21.

34.

Hernandez

Chang

Ngunjiri

(2017) ‘Collaborative autoethnography as multivocal, relational, and democratic research: Opportunities, challenges, and aspirations’. A/B: Auto/biography Studies 32(2): 251–254.

35.

Höhmann

(2023) ‘Demystifying publishing during the PhD: Navigating challenges and opportunities’. Politics & Gender 19(2): 636–641.

36.

Jezewski

(1990) ‘Culture brokering in migrant farm worker health care’. Western Journal of Nursing Research 12(4): 497–513.

37.

Joseph

Hirshfield

(2010) ‘Why don’t you get somebody new to do it?’ Race and cultural taxation in the academy. Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(1): 121–141.

38.

Kamlongera

(2023) ‘“So what’s arts got to do with it?”: An autoethnography of navigating researcher positionality while co-creating knowledge’. Qualitative Research 23(3): 651–667.

39.

Kelly

(2022) ‘Challenges and opportunities: Early career researchers’. MDPI Blog. Available at: https://blog.mdpi.com/2022/11/28/challenges-and-opportunities/

40.

Kent

Holman

Amoako

, et al. (2022) ‘Recommendations for empowering early career researchers to improve research culture and practice’. Plos Biology 20(7): e3001680.

41.

Lapadat

(2017) ‘Ethics in autoethnography and collaborative autoethnography’. Qualitative Inquiry 23(8): 589–603.

42.

Lea

(2015) ‘The future of the humanities in today’s neoliberal environment’. Asia Pacific Higher Education Research Journal 2(2). https://doi.org/10.56278/apherj.v2i2.113

43.

Lee

Kamler

(2008) ‘Bridging the pedagogy to doctoral publishing’. Teaching in Higher Education 13(5): 511–523.

44.

Leung

MWH

(2014) ‘Unsettling the Yin-Yang harmony: An analysis of gender inequalities in academic mobility among Chinese scholars’. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 23(2): 155–182.

45.

Leung

MWH

(2017) ‘Social mobility via academic mobility: Reconfigurations in class and gender identities among Asian scholars in the global North’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 43(16): 2704–2719.

46.

Liu

Chen

(2023) ‘Where is our way? A collaborative autoethnography of overseas-educated Chinese female PhDs’ academic career decision journey’. Higher Education Quarterly 78(2): 368–387.

47.

Lozic

(2024) ‘The transformative power of practitioner inquiry: Collaborative autoethnography, norm critique and research circles in Swedish education’. Critical Studies in Education. Epub ahead of print 8 August. DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2024.2400691.

48.

Maydell

(2010) ‘Methodological and analytical dilemmas in autoethnographic research’. Journal of Research Practice 6(1): Article M5.

49.

Mehdipour

Prokosch

Williams

, et al. (2024) ‘The importance of belonging: Reflections on a participatory action research project in Jacksonville, Florida’. Disaster Prevention and Management 34(1): 55–74.

50.

Merton

(1968) Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press.

51.

Merton

(1972) ‘Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the sociology of knowledge’. American Journal of Sociology 78(1): 9–47.

52.

Miller

Castaneda

Alemán

(2023) ‘Pains and portends: A collaborative autoethnography of engineering faculty navigating gendered cultures’. Frontiers in Communication 8: 1023594.

53.

Mills

(1959) The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

54.

Miyahara

Fukao

(2022) ‘Exploring the use of collaborative autoethnography as a tool for facilitating the development of researcher reflexivity’. System 10: 102751.

55.

Mullings

(1999) ‘Insider or outsider, both or neither: Some dilemmas of interviewing in a cross-cultural setting’. Geoforum 30: 337–350.

56.

Naddaf

(2024) ‘Nearly 50% of researchers quit science within a decade, huge study reveals’. Nature.

57.

Nature (2017) ‘Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects’. Nature 550: 429.

58.

Nisa-Waller

Piercy

(2024) ‘Autoethnography as a decolonising tool: Bringing identity into the classroom’. Higher Education Research & Development 43(5): 1142–1155.

59.

Nissen

Naepi

Powell

, et al. (2020) ‘Early career researchers in Aotearoa: Safeguarding and strengthening opportunity after COVID-19’. Early Career Researcher (ECR) Forum of Royal Society Te Apārangi. Available at: https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/assets/Aotearoa-ECRs-Post-COVID-August-2020.pdf

60.

Nordbäck

Hakonen

Tienari

(2022) ‘Academic identities and sense of place: A collaborative autoethnography in the neoliberal university’. Management Learning 53(2): 331–349.

61.

Norrie

(2012, February 23). ‘Collegiality is dead in the New Corporatized University’. The Conversation. Available at: http://theconversation.edu.au/collegiality-is-dead-in-the-new-corporatised-university-5539

62.

Oldfield

Roy

Simpson

, et al. (2021) ‘Academic activism in the wake of a pandemic: A collective self-reflection from Aotearoa/New Zealand’. International Perspectives in Psychology 10(4): 215–227.

63.

Pham

Gothberg

(2020) ‘Autoethnography as a decolonizing methodology: Reflections on masta’s what the grandfathers taught me’. The Qualitative Report 25(11): 4094–4103.

64.

Philaretou

Allen

(2006) ‘Researching sensitive topics through autoethnographic means’. The Journal of Men’s Studies 14(1): 65–78.

65.

Phillipson

(2019) ‘Languages in public policy, and constraints in academia’. Language Problems and Language Planning 43(3): 286–311.

66.

Pickering

Byrne

(2014) The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers’. Higher Education Research & Development 33(3): 534–548.

67.

Purvis

Keding

Lewis

, et al. (2023) ‘Critical reflections of postgraduate researchers on a collaborative interdisciplinary research project’. Humanities & Social Science Communication 10(1): 10.

68.

Reed-Danahay

(2017) ‘Bourdieu and critical autoethnography: Implications for research, writing and teaching’. International Journal of Multicultural Education 19(1): 144–154.

69.

Robins

Kanowski

(2008) ‘PhD by publication: A student’s perspective’. Journal of Research Practice 4(2): 1–20.

70.

Rowlands

(2022) ‘Autoethnography, reflexivity and insider researcher dynamics’. African Sociological Review 26(1): 6–25.

71.

Roy

Uekusa

(2020) ‘Collaborative autoethnography: ‘Self-reflection’ as timely alternative research approach during the global pandemic’. Qualitative Research Journal, 20(4): 383–392.

72.

Roy

Uekusa

Karki

(2021) ‘Multidimensional, complex and contingent: International PhD students’ social mobility’. Ethnicities, 21(5): 827–851.

73.

Shapiro

Atallah-Gutiérrez

(2021) ‘Cultivating feminist transnational practice with immigrant women: A collaborative autoethnography’. Women & Therapy 44(1–2): 172–192.

74.

Simpson

Salter

Roy

, et al. (2023) ‘Less talk, more action: (Re)organising universities in Aotearoa, New Zealand’. Learning and Teaching: The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences 16(2): 100–118.

75.

Skutnabb-Kangas

(2015) ‘Linguicism’. In: Chapelle

(ed) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wylie & Blackwell.

76.

Skutnabb-Kangas

(2020) ‘Linguistic genocide’. In: Greenland

Göçek

(eds) Cultural Violence and the Destruction of Human Communities. Routledge, pp. 58–74.

77.

Slaughter

Rhoades

(2004) Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

78.

Smith

(2012) Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Dunedin, NZ, Australia: Otago University Press.

79.

Sparkes

(2002) ‘Autoethnography: Self-indulgence or something else?’In: Bochner

Ellis

(eds), Ethnographically Speaking: Autoethnography, Literature and Aesthetics. New York: AltaMira Press, pp. 209–232.

80.

Sparkes

(2021) ‘Making a spectacle of oneself in the academy using the H-index: From becoming an artificial person to laughing at absurdities’. Qualitative Inquiry 27(8–9): 1027–1039.

81.

Stahlke Wall

(2016) ‘Toward a moderate autoethnography’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 15(1): 1–9.

82.

Stringer

Smith

Spronken-Smith

, et al. (2018) ‘“My entire career has been fixed term”: Gender and precarious academic employment at a New Zealand University’. New Zealand Sociology 33(2): 169–201.

83.

Uekusa

(2009) Everyday experiences and linguicism: A sociological critique of linguistic human rights (LHRs). MA thesis. California State University San Marcos, USA. http://hdl.handle.net/10211.3/122624

84.

Uekusa

(2018) ‘Rethinking resilience: Bourdieu’s contribution to disaster research’. Resilience, 6(3): 181–195.

85.

Uekusa

(2019) ‘Disaster linguicism: Linguistic minorities in disasters’. Language in Society, 48(3): 353–375.

86.

Uekusa

(2022) ‘Overcoming disaster linguicism: Using autoethnography during the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark to explore how community translators can provide multilingual disaster communication’. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 50(6): 673–690.

87.

Uekusa

Matthewman

(2022) ‘The limits of resilience: A discussion of resilience from the perspective of critical disaster studies.’ Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 26(3): 117–130.

88.

Uekusa

Matthewman

Lorenz

(2022) ‘Conceptualizing disaster social capital: What it is, why it matters and how it can be enhanced.’ Disasters, 46(1): 56–79.

89.

Uekusa

Nguyen-Trung

Lorenz

, et al. (2024) ‘Bourdieu and early career researchers (ECRs) in disaster research: A collaborative autoethnography’. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 114: 104969.

90.

University of Zurich (2024) ‘UZH to no longer provide data for THE ranking’. Zürich: University of Zurich. Available at: https://www.news.uzh.ch/en/articles/news/2024/rankings.html

91.

Valdovinos

Walton

Oyewuwo

(2023) ‘Normal wasn’t good: A collaborative autoethnography of the intersectional experiences of academic women of color mothering during the dual pandemics’. Affilia 38(4): 703–723.

92.

Wall

(2008) ‘Easier said than done: Writing an autoethnography’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 7(1): 38–53.

93.

Wilson

(2002) ‘Quality assurance issues for a PhD by published work: A case study’. Quality Assurance in Education 10(2): 71–78.