Autoethnography as a research method: advantages, limitations and criticisms

La autoetnografía como un método de investigación: ventajas, limitaciones y críticas

Authors

  • Mariza G. Méndez Universidad de Quintana Roo

Keywords:

Autoetnografía, Métodos de investigación, Escritura Narrativa (es).

Keywords:

Autoethnography, Research methods, Narrative writing (en).

Downloads

Abstract (en)

The aim of this article is to review the literature on autoethnography as a research method. It will first describe what is meant by autoethnography, or evocative narratives, and consider the particular features of this type of method. The paper will go on to explore the advantages, limitations and criticisms this research method has endured since its emergence during the 1980s. Finally, the different approaches to the evaluation of autoethnography will be reviewed.

Abstract (es)

El propósito de este artículo es analizar la literatura sobre autoetnografía como método de investigación. Primero se describirá lo que significa el término autoetnografía o narrativa evocativa, y se analizarán las características principales de este método de investigación. Posteriormente el artículo explora las ventajas, limitaciones y críticas que este método ha enfrentado desde su surgimiento durante la época de los 80s. Finalmente, los diferentes enfoques utilizados para evaluar una autoetnografía serán examinados

Author Biography

Mariza G. Méndez, Universidad de Quintana Roo

PhD. from the University of Nottingham, England (2008-2011), and M.A in Educational Psychology from
the University of Havana, Cuba (2000). She holds an M.A in TESOL from the University of Manchester, England (2001) and is Technical Secretariat of Research and Graduate Studies in the Division of Political Science and Humanities at University of Quintana Roo, Mexico.

References

nderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal

of Contemporary Ethnography, 35,373-395.

Atkinson, P. (1997). Narrative turn or blind alley?Qualitative Health Research, 7, 325-344.

Barkhuizen, G., & Wette, R. (2008). Narrative frames for

investigating the experiences oflanguage teachers.

System, 36, 372-387.

Bochner, A. P., & Ellis, C. (1996). Talking over ethnography. In C. Ellis & A. P. Bochner (Eds.), Composing Ethnography: Alternative Forms of Qualitative

Writing (pp. 13-45).Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira

Press.

Bochner, A. P., & Ellis, C. (2006). Communication as

autoethnography. In G. J. Shepherd J. S. John & T.

Striphas (Eds.), Communication as ...: Perspectives

on theory (pp. 13-21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed)

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000).Narrative inquiry: Experience and story inqualitative research.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Coffey, A. (1999).The ethnographic self. London: Sage

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1999). Narrative inquiry. In J. P. Keeves & G. Lakomski (Eds.),Issues in

Educational Research (pp. 132–40). Oxford: Elsevier

Science.

Méndez M., (2013) Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

ISSN 0123-4641 • Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 279 - 287

Cresswell, J. W. (2009).Research design: Qualitative,

quantitative and mixed-methodsapproaches.London: Sage. Reed-Danahay, D. E. (1997). Introduction. In D. E. Reed-Danahay (Ed.),Auto/ethnography:

Rewriting the self and the social (pp. 1-17). Oxford:

Berg.

Denzin, N. K. (1989).Interpretive biography. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. (1997).Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. London: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The

discipline and practice ofqualitative research. In N.

K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitativeresearch (pp. 1-28). London: Sage.

Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject.

In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of

Qualitative Research (pp. 733-768). London: Sage.

Ellis, C. (2000). Creating criteria: An ethnographic short

story. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 273-277.

Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological

novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA:

AltaMira Press.

Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational

ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative

Inquiry, 13, 3-29.

Ellis, C., Bochner, A. P., Denzin, N. K., JR., H. L. B. G.,

Pelias, R., & Richardson, L. (2007). Coda: Talking and

thinking about qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin,

& M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Ethical Futures in Qualitative

Research: Decolonizing the Politics of Knowledge

(pp. 229-267). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Flick, U. (2002).An introduction to qualitative research.

London: Sage.

Foley, D. E. (2002). Critical ethnography: The reflexive

turn.Qualitative Studies inEducation, 15,469-490.

Foster, K., McAllister, M., & O’Brien, L. (2006). Extending

the boundaries: Autoethnographyas an emergent

method in mental health nursing research.International Journal of Mental Health, 15, 44-53.

Freebody, P. (2003).Qualitative research in education.

London: Sage.

Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the

teacher. (2 ed.) London: Routledge.

Holt, N. L. (2003). Representation, legitimation, and

autoethnography: An autoethnographic writing

story. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,

, 18-28.

Kyratzis, A., & Green, J. (1997). Jointly constructed narratives in classrooms: Co- Construction of friendship

and community through language. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 13,17-37.

Macalister, J. (2012). Narrative frames and needs analysis.System, 40, 120-128.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999).Designing qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Masako, K. (2013). Gaps too large: Four novice EFL

teachers’ self-concept and motivation. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 33, 45-55.

Maso, L. (2001). Phenomenology and ethnography. In

P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, &

L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography(pp.

-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McIlveen, P. (2008). Autoethnography as a method for

reflexive research and practice invocational psychology. Australian Journal of Career Development,

, 13-20.

Megford, K. (2006). Caught with a fake ID: Ethical questions about slippage in autoethnography. Qualitative

Inquiry, 12, 853-864.

Méndez , M. G. (2012). The emotional experience of

learning English as a foreign language: Mexican

ELT students’ voices on motivation. México, DF: La

Editorial Manda.

Méndez, M. G., & Peña, A. (2013). Emotions as learning

enhancers of foreign language learning motivation.

PROFILE Journal, 15, 109-124.

Merriam, B. S. (2009).Qualitative research: A guide to

design and implementation.San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Miller, T., & Bell, L. (2002). Consenting to what? Issues

of access, gatekeeping and ‘informed consent’. In

M. Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop, & T. Miller (Eds.),

Ethics in Qualitative Research(pp. 53-69). London:

Sage.

Nekvapil, J. (2003). Language biographies and the analysis of language situations: On the lifeof the German

community in the Czech Republic.International

Journal of theSociology of Language, 162,63-83.

Pavlenko, A. (2002). Narrative study: whose story is it

anyway? TESOL Quarterly, 36,213- 218

Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in

applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28, 63-188.

Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

ISSN 0123-4641 • June -December 2013. Vol. 15 • Number 2 • Bogotá, Colombia. p. 279 - 287

Autoethnography as a research method: Advantages, limitations and criticisms

Plummer, K. (2001). The call of life stories in ethnographic

research. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J.

Lofland, & L. Lofland(Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 395-406). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Richards, R. (2008). Writing the othered self: Autoethnography and the problem of objectification in writing

about illness and disability. Qualitative Health Research, 1, 1717-1728.

Richardson, L. (2000a).Evaluating ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 253-255.

Richardson, L. (2000b). Introduction-Assessing alternative modes of qualitative and ethnographic research:

How do we judge? Who judges? Qualitative Inquiry,

, 251-252.

Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2013). Struggling for a professional

identity: Two newly qualified language teachers’

identity narratives during the first years at work.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 120-129.

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.

Sparkes, A. C. (2000). Autoethnography and narratives

of self: Reflections on criteria in action.Sociology

of Sport Journal, 17, 21-43.

Walford, G. (2004). Finding the limits: Autoethnography

and being and Oxford Universityproctor.Qualitative

Research, 4, 403-417.

Wall, S. (2008). Easier said than done: Writing an autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative

Methods, 7,38-53.

Wolcott, H. F. (1994).Transforming qualitative data.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wyatt, J. (2006). Psychic distance, consent, and other

ethical issues. Qualitative Inquiry, 12,813-818.

How to Cite

APA

Méndez, M. G. (2013). Autoethnography as a research method: advantages, limitations and criticisms. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 15(2), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2013.2.a09

ACM

[1]
Méndez, M.G. 2013. Autoethnography as a research method: advantages, limitations and criticisms. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal. 15, 2 (Jul. 2013), 279–287. DOI:https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2013.2.a09.

ACS

(1)
Méndez, M. G. Autoethnography as a research method: advantages, limitations and criticisms. Colomb. appl. linguist. j 2013, 15, 279-287.

ABNT

MÉNDEZ, Mariza G. Autoethnography as a research method: advantages, limitations and criticisms. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, [S. l.], v. 15, n. 2, p. 279–287, 2013. DOI: 10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2013.2.a09. Disponível em: https://revistas.udistrital.edu.co/index.php/calj/article/view/5134. Acesso em: 6 dec. 2024.

Chicago

Méndez, Mariza G. 2013. “Autoethnography as a research method: advantages, limitations and criticisms”. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal 15 (2):279-87. https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2013.2.a09.

Harvard

Méndez, M. G. (2013) “Autoethnography as a research method: advantages, limitations and criticisms”, Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 15(2), pp. 279–287. doi: 10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2013.2.a09.

IEEE

[1]
M. G. Méndez, “Autoethnography as a research method: advantages, limitations and criticisms”, Colomb. appl. linguist. j, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 279–287, Jul. 2013.

MLA

Méndez, Mariza G. “Autoethnography as a research method: advantages, limitations and criticisms”. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, July 2013, pp. 279-87, doi:10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2013.2.a09.

Turabian

Méndez, Mariza G. “Autoethnography as a research method: advantages, limitations and criticisms”. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal 15, no. 2 (July 1, 2013): 279–287. Accessed December 6, 2024. https://revistas.udistrital.edu.co/index.php/calj/article/view/5134.

Vancouver

1.
Méndez MG. Autoethnography as a research method: advantages, limitations and criticisms. Colomb. appl. linguist. j [Internet]. 2013 Jul. 1 [cited 2024 Dec. 6];15(2):279-87. Available from: https://revistas.udistrital.edu.co/index.php/calj/article/view/5134

Download Citation

Visitas

8263

Dimensions


PlumX


Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Publication Facts

Metric
This article
Other articles
Peer reviewers 
0
2.4

Reviewer profiles  N/A

Author statements

Author statements
This article
Other articles
Data availability 
N/A
16%
External funding 
No
32%
Competing interests 
N/A
11%
Metric
This journal
Other journals
Articles accepted 
48%
33%
Days to publication 
204
145

Indexed in

Editor & editorial board
profiles
Academic society 
N/A
Loading...