Abstract
Duoethnography
Norris et al. have written a magnificent book introducing us to the research concept of duoethnography. Whether you are a seasoned scholar or a novice researcher, this relatively new approach to the study of currere, which ‘views a person’s life as a curriculum’ (Pinar, 1975), is worth reading at any graduate level. The book is a collection of 11 compositions by 22 different authors. Like Kathleen Sitter, I too, wonder ‘where we should begin’ (p. 244).
In laymen’s terms, duoethnography is a scholarly conversation. The topic is viewed through the researcher’s eyes and communicated via a written dialogue. Each researcher ‘juxtapose their life histories’ (p. 9) and become co-authors through ‘perpetual inquiry’ (p. 17). The questions posed to each other in a ‘safe … circle’ (p. 269) are essential in this interpretative (Merriam, 2009: 12) research process to better understand the world around them.
An interesting aspect to this process is the manner in which duoethnography ‘will chart its own course’ (p. 25), and the authors ‘do not know how the conversation will unfold’ (p. 32). The thought-provoking book cover is a testament to this very fact. The reading audience then adds the ‘etic perspective or outsider’s view’ (Merriam, 2009: 14) and continues the dialogue. I too was captivated by the discourse and became immersed in the duoethnography process by pausing on numerous occasions, ‘squeezing my feet … into those once-worn shoes’ (p. 132), and reflecting on my own ‘distinctive … experience’ (p. 204). One of the engaging characteristics of this process was being able to access the website provided (p. 126) and add my 2 cents worth. I was pleasantly surprised to receive an email acknowledgement from Dr Breault himself.
The ‘back and forth … rhythm’ (p. 41) and exchange of ideas among the duoethnographers is similar to the ‘member check’ (Merriam, 2009: 229) strategy used to produce validity and reliability in a qualitative research study. A deliberate attempt to identify the author helps the reader distinguish who is doing the storytelling. Adding to the richness of the text is the bibliography section entitled ‘about the authors’ (p. 319). Checking ‘to see who the writer is’ (p. 203) aids the reader appreciate the interpretation given. Some chapters include a prologue, and these introductory remarks provide a helpful hint in previewing what research is to be revealed.
Gleaning nuggets of useful information from the text were facilitated by sections in the book entitled ‘lessons learned’ (p. 152). Whether the reader agrees or disagrees with the material presented, it provides an opportunity for faculty to assess and possibly incorporate portions of those teaching points into their own syllabi or classroom practice. One of these examples is ‘developing duoethnography assignments’ (p. 154), better known to most instructors as team projects.
Among the areas of this book worth noting is the cross-chapter referencing among many of the authors, which supports the fact that this was a collaborative effort rather than 13 stand-alone manuscripts. Unlike most qualitative researchers who learn to keep their subjectivity (Peshkin, 1988) in check, these authors must recognize those ‘triggers’ (p. 153) that lead to a deeper self-reflection and contributes to increased validity in this type of study. While our three authors write an exemplary piece, improvements in certain areas would enhance the text dramatically. The addition of larger margins or white space would invite the reader to insert written and personal reflection notes. A glossary of terms would have been useful particularly in the opening chapter. The use of coarse language to describe the ‘curriculum of beauty’ (p. 223) was puzzling.
The authors clearly demonstrate how the duoethnography process can be constructed through the researcher’s common interests, such as pictures, gender, songs, culture, beauty and careers. The chapter’s subtitles introduce an opening general theme and transport the reader towards a more complex, ‘dangerous conversation’ (p. 13) such as diversity or ethics.
In an attempt to provide a comprehensive review of this beautifully constructed manuscript, my mind is haunted by Diedre Le Fevre’s comment, ‘no, that’s not what I meant’ (p. 281) at all. To summarize, duoethnography is a qualitative research method we practice every day. By ‘weaving ourselves into the fabric of our inquiry’ (p. 297), we become the currere of our own research. Bravo! Well done!