Abstract
Autoethnography (AE) is one of the newer qualitative methodologies grounded in ethnography and autobiography traditions in which the author, or group of authors, is both researcher and the subject of research. Described as both a methodology and a method for conducting research, AE provides a forum for self-reflection, learning, and changing academic, practice, or personal life approaches. Hughes and Pennington (2017) define AE as a critical study of oneself in context of the social, cultural, or other influences (history, education, profession, etc.).
The newest book from this developing research provides a detailed look into the theoretical underpinnings of this qualitative methodology. Hughes and Pennington (2017) take an approach that allows for the “process, product, and possibility” of AE to be read in the three detailed sections either sequentially or as independent sections. These authors use critical social research as their theoretical underpinning exemplar; however, the book has plenty of examples from all theoretical domains to either step into the method as a novice or refine existing AE research.
The authors have divided the book into three parts allowing the reader to move back and forth between sections without losing sight of the importance of the book, which serves as a research how-to-manual and as the foundation of a curriculum for teaching AE. The book is an appealing tool for both students to learn and professors to introduce the method of AE.
Part I—Histories and Applications of AE as Critical Social Research
The authors walk the reader through the short but complex history of AE and the connection between humans, relationships, and contexts. They offer a table displaying the approach, disciplinary roots, and possible questions for AE, which is easy to follow and makes sense for both new researchers trying to understand the choices of qualitative methods and experienced researchers searching for the connections between their current qualitative approach and potential new approaches (Hughes & Pennington, 2017, p. 7).
The authors identify 22 different types of AE approaches, ranging from analytic to performance to reflexive. They further delineate authorship of AE from individual studies of self to collective studies of self, communities, and like-minded researchers.
The first part of the book provides details of many different theories and specifically focuses on critical research theory. This is both informative and somewhat difficult to follow when seeking to make connections to the readers’ own theoretical foundation. It does offer the reader a way to apply theory and focus on AE as both methodology and method. They refer to AE as a “hybrid qualitative genre” (Hughes & Pennington, 2017, p. 11) and explain the AE coming from two distinct views: auto (self) and ethnography (the study of community).
Part II—Doing AE: From Brainstorming to Guiding Process
In this section, the authors outline their approach in three processes: (1) problematizing what you know for new-self insight, (2) legitimizing AE with three approaches, and (3) synthesizing new-self insights with meta-synthesis of individualized and coauthored AE (MICA; Hughes & Pennington, 2017, pp. 110–142). Readers can use this section as a stand-alone reference for one way to conduct AE.
In Part II, the authors reinforce their notion of why researchers engage in AE: “…precisely help reveal power, domination, privilege, and penalty in both the extraordinary and the mundane social issue of our larger cultural contexts” (Hughes & Pennington, 2017, p. 59). They describe problematizing as both contextualizing and approaching research, as well as explaining the process of solving a problem through the history and lens of various researchers, including Freire (1972, 1973) and Foucault (1977, 1985), who were leaders and originators in the field, cited by Hughes & Pennington (2017, pp. 59–71) and found in Anderson (2006).
The authors organize the problematizing process in these steps: (1) find the theoretical foundation and collect data using triangulation or assemblage methods; (2) the former concerns the use of multiple sources to compare research, while the latter, based on archeological research methods, describes eight techniques for AE which are outlined on page 62 of the text. These techniques may appeal to researchers as more of a cookbook approach and include everything from collecting research journal articles to writing and reviewing other researchers’ stories, then creating new analyses of these data. This chapter offers details of the eight strategies in a complex representation of the method.
The inclusion of case studies increases the usability of this section and helps the reader explore autoethnographic research by students and professors alike. What is interesting in this section is the application and explanation of ethnography classifications and distinctions: “emic” (insider/me) and “etic” (outsider/them) concepts to the AE researcher. AE offers an opportunity to both observe and participate in research, often taboo in ethnographic research.
The overall process of doing AE is comprised of six steps nicely represented in an iterative model (Hughes & Pennington, 2017, p. 86). These six steps can be summarized as follows: find the theory, locate self, ask the question, compare theory to literature to experience, assemble data, and seek and receive ethical approval.
The second guiding process is about legitimizing the research. Debates continue about the AE methodology within the qualitative research community as well as within the AE community itself. The authors clearly explain the debates and schools of thought for completing an AE study, challenging the reader to find the right place for their novel research. This challenge is in part due to the numerous ways to perform AE, as well as the debate on whether this is a “true” AE of the self. It is very difficult to understand how to “prove” the work when triangulated or even assembled data are too personal or ethically unavailable for support.
The authors do provide a varied and complex description of the difference between analytic (empirical evidence) and evocative (performance, poetry, photography, etc.) approaches to legitimizing AE research. By offering this overview, the reader can choose which approach best suits their research.
The final chapter of this section teaches the reader about an interesting methods approach to AE: the meta-synthesis or MICA method. This secondary data approach might be a way to teach oneself about the overall process of an individualized AE. By understanding the connection between the work of many researchers who share a similar life experience or phenomenon, one may find a simple way to start their own AE. The authors break this down into six phases beginning with just getting started, choosing relevance, reviewing the selection, finding the connection, and analyzing the works. The sixth and final phase is typical of any qualitative meta-synthesis: translation (Hughes & Pennington, 2017, pp. 114–122).
Part III—The Future of AE: A Prism of Possibility
The authors conclude with another concept as a way of demonstrating the future and potential of AE: critically reflexive action research (CRAR). This concept builds on action research, which they summarize as “the analysis of a social issue with the goal of planning, formulation, reflection, and evaluation interventions…relying on cyclical process and research partnership” (Hughes & Pennington, 2017, p. 145).
This chapter could have been a complete book and should serve as an indicator of the possibilities of AE as a method. Although contextualized in critically reflexive action research, the reader should not let this particular focus be a deterrent to writing their first AE.
The strength of this book is its appeal to novice and experienced qualitative researchers, students, and professors. The appendices and the glossary are very easy to follow and provide helpful references and examples of autoethnographic research from the single author to collaborative authors’ manuscripts. By providing a curriculum, the authors have further solidified the preceding work of leaders in the field and helped us find a scientific way to share our pasts with others who have traveled on the same road or who wish to take the journey.
Summary
This book is not for the faint of heart but offers a sound and evidence-based methodology for the science of exploring one’s lived experience in academia, practice, and personal life. As members of a rich history of healthcare design academics, practitioners, and researchers, we can reflect on our past, improve our present, and ensure our legacy through writing our own (and/or our collective) AE. Hughes and Pennington have taken a complex method and broadened our horizons in a way that welcomes our community to tell our stories. I recommend this book for qualitative researchers in the healthcare design profession.