Advertisement

Introduction to Autoethnography

  • Ajnesh Prasad
Chapter

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is threefold. First, I describe the intellectual origins of autoethnography. Second, I define autoethnography as a method for social inquiry. Third, I describe the layout of this book. This chapter is intended to foreground the subsequent chapters, which draw on my fieldwork in Palestine to offer glimpses into how I have leveraged autoethnography in my own work, as both a method and a form of writing.

Keywords

Autoethnography Reflexivity Research ethics Research method Self 

References

  1. Bochner, A. P. (2016). Notes toward an ethics of memory in autoethnographic inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Ethical futures in qualitative research: Decolonizing the politics of knowledge (pp. 197–208). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Cixous, H. (1976). The laugh of the Medusa (K. Cohen & P. Cohen, Trans.). Signs, 1(4), 875–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collinson, J. A., & Hockey, J. (2005). Autoethnography: Self-indulgence or rigorous methodology. In M. McNamee (Ed.), Philosophy and the sciences of exercise, health and sport: Critical perspectives on research methods (pp. 177–191). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research, 36(4), 273–290.Google Scholar
  6. Fotaki, M., Metcalfe, B., & Harding, N. (2014). Writing materiality into management and organization studies through and with Luce Irigaray. Human Relations, 67(10), 1239–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  8. Fournier, V., & Grey, C. (2000). At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical management studies. Human Relations, 53(1), 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freshwater, D., Cahill, J., Walsh, E., & Muncey, T. (2010). Qualitative research as evidence: Criteria for rigour and relevance. Journal of Research in Nursing, 15(6), 497–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  11. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayano, D. M. (1979). Auto-ethnography: Paradigms, problems, and prospects. Human Organization, 38(1), 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holt, N. L. (2003). Representation, legitimation, and autoethnography: An autoethnographic writing story. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(1), 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Humphreys, M. (2005). Getting personal: Reflexivity and autoethnographic vignettes. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(6), 840–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lapadat, J. C. (2017). Ethics in autoethnography and collaborative autoethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(8), 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Le Roux, C. S. (2017). Exploring rigour in autoethnographic research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(2), 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 491–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Phillips, M., Pullen, A., & Rhodes, C. (2014). Writing organization as gendered practice: Interrupting the libidinal economy. Organization Studies, 35(3), 313–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pullen, A. (2006). Gendering the research self: Social practice and corporeal multiplicity in the writing of organizational research. Gender, Work and Organization, 13(3), 277–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Salzman, P. C. (2002). On reflexivity. American Anthropologist, 104(3), 805–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tolich, M. (2010). A critique of current practice: Ten foundational guidelines for autoethnographers. Qualitative Health Research, 20(12), 1599–1610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ulus, E. (2015). Workplace emotions in postcolonial spaces: Enduring legacies, ambivalence, and subversion. Organization, 22(6), 890–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajnesh Prasad
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Royal Roads UniversityVictoriaCanada
  2. 2.Tecnologico de MonterreyMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations