1

Title: Autoethnography as Method

Subtitle: Raising Cultural Consciousness of Self and Others
Author: Heewon Chang, Ph. D.
Institution: astern !ni"ersity
Position: Associate Professor of ducation# Chair of $raduate ducation Progra%s#
ditor&in&Chief, lectronic Maga'ine of Multicultural ducation
(http)**www.eastern.edu*pu+lications*e%%e,
Contact: astern !ni"ersity
ducation Depart%ent
1-.. agle Road
St. Da"ids, PA 1/.01
21.&-31&14/1 (office,# hchang5eastern.edu
21.&/23&0011 (ho%e,
Abstract:
Autoethnography is an ethnographic in6uiry that utili'es the auto+iographic %aterials of
the researcher as the pri%ary data. Differing fro% other self&narrati"e writings such as
auto+iography and %e%oir, autoethnography e%phasi'es cultural analysis and
interpretation of the researcher7s +eha"iors, thoughts, and e8periences in relation to
others in society. Autoethnography should +e ethnographical in its %ethodological
orientation, cultural in its interpreti"e orientation, and auto+iographical in its content
orientation. 9n this chapter the author discusses the definition of this in6uiry %ethod,
%ethodology, and +enefits of autoethnography as well as pitfalls to a"oid when doing
autoethnography.
Contributor:
Heewon Chang (Ph. D., !ni"ersity of Oregon, is Associate Professor of ducation and
Chair of $raduate ducation Progra%s at astern !ni"ersity, Pennsyl"ania, !.S.A,
where she teaches courses on %ulticultural education, research design, gender e6uity
education, and glo+al education. She founded an open&access e&:ournal, Electronic
Magazine of Multicultural Education (http)**www.eastern.edu*pu+lications*e%%e,, in
1/// and has ser"ed as ditor&in&Chief. Her +oo;, Adolescent Life and Ethos: An
Ethnography of a US High School (1///, <al%er Press,, and su+se6uent research pro:ects
reflect her interest in adolescent culture. A new +oo;, Autoethnography as Methods, will
+e pu+lished +y =eft Coast Press in >..1. ?rained as an educational anthropologist, she
;eeps her research focus on %ulticultural education, anthropology and education, and
ethnographic and autoethnographic %ethodology. Her li"ed e8perience with the @orean,
!S, and $er%an cultures infor% her teaching and research agenda.
>
AUTOETHNOGRAPHY AS METHOD:
Raisin Cultural Consciousness o! Sel! an" Others
#hat Is Autoethnora$h%&
Autoethnography is ethnographical and auto+iographical at the sa%e ti%e. Here 9
intentionally place AethnographicalB +efore Aauto+iographicalB to highlight the
ethnographical character of this in6uiry %ethod. ?his character connotes that
autoethnography utili'es the ethnographic research %ethods and is concerned a+out the
cultural connection +etween self and others representing the society. ?his ethnographic
aspect distinguishes autoethnography fro% other narrati"e&oriented writings such as
auto+iography, %e%oir, or :ournal.
llis C Dochner (>..., define autoethnography as Aauto+iographies that self&
consciously e8plore the interplay of the introspecti"e, personally engaged self with
cultural descriptions %ediated through language, history, and ethnographic e8planationB
(p. 13>,. Although their definition leans too far toward the auto+iographical than the
ethnographic end, their o+ser"ation of Aconnecting the personal to the culturalB
accurately points to the i%portant %ission of autoethnography (p. 1-/,. ?his i%portant
lin;age +etween Athe self and the socialB is also e%phasi'ed in Reed&Danahay7s (1//1,
oft&6uoted +oo;, Auto/Ethngoraphy: Rewriting the Self and the Social. 9n these wor;s of
llis, Dochner, and Reed&Danahay, the AselfB refers to an ethnographer self.
Howe"er, when the ter% Aauto&ethnographyB was first introduced +y anthropologist
Heider (1/14,, AselfB did not %ean the ethnographer self, +ut rather the infor%ant self. 9n
his study of Dani people, he called their cultural accounts of the%sel"es the Dani7s
-
autoethnography. ?he ter% was used in a si%ilar way when Dut' and Desio (>..3,
discussed the coloni'ed people7s self&understanding. Hayano (1/1/, e%ployed the ter%
AautoethnographyB differently when he studied his Aown people.B Eolcott (>..3,
infor%s us that his Aown peopleB were card players who spent Aleisure hours playing
cards in Southern California7s legiti%ate card roo%sB (p. /0,.
Since then, an e8tensi"e list of la+els has +een used to refer to auto+iographical
applications in social science research according to llis and Dochner (>..., pp. 1-/&
13.,. <or Reed&Danahay (1//1,, the la+el of autoethnography includes at least three
"arieties) (1, Anati"e anthropologyB produced +y nati"e anthropologists fro% the people
group who were for%erly studied +y outsiders# (>, Aethnic auto+iographyB written +y
%e%+ers of ethnic %inority groups# and (-, Aauto+iographical ethnographyB in which
anthropologists inter:ect personal e8perience into ethnographic writing (p. >,.
?hese "aried autoethnographic studies do not place an e6ual e%phasis on
auto+iography (content, and ethnography (in6uiry process,. llis and Dochner offer an
insightful triadic %odel to illustrate the co%ple8ity of the autoethnography no%enclature.
?hey state that AFaGutoethnoraphers "ary in their e%phasis on the research process
(graphy,, on culture (ethno,, and on self (auto,B and that AFdGifferent e8e%plars of
autoethnography fall at different places along the continuu% of each of these three a8esB
(p. 13.,. So%e of the% place %ore "alue on the ethnographic process# others on cultural
interpretation and analysis# and yet a third ;ind on self&narrati"es. @eeping in %ind the
triadic +alance, 9 argue that autoethnography should +e ethnographical in its
%ethodological orientation, cultural in its interpreti"e orientation, and auto+iographical in
3
its content orientation. ?his i%plies that self&reflecti"e writings deficient in any one of
these ingredients would fall short of Aauto&ethno&graphy.B
Metho"olo% o! Autoethnora$h%
Harious %ethodological strategies of autoethnography ha"e +een de"eloped in a
"ariety of 6ualitati"e research traditions and listed under different na%es (llis C
Dochner >..., p. 13.,. ?he list of the na%es is also e8tensi"e according to these authors.
Regardless of different origins and representations, all the %ethodological strategies
share the co%%onality of +eing the 6ualitati"e, Anarrati"e in6uiryB (Clandinin and
Connelly >...,. So%e are %ore ethnographic than others in ter%s of its ethnographic
intent and research process. ?he auto+iographic in6uires with the ethnographic
orientation are the ones 9 focus on in this chapter.
=i;e ethnography, autoethnography pursues the ulti%ate goal of cultural
understanding underlying auto+iographical e8periences. ?o achie"e this ethnographic
intent, autoethnographers undergo the usual ethnographic research process of data
collection, data analysis*interpretation, and report writing. ?hey collect field data +y
%eans of participation, self&o+ser"ation, inter"iew, and docu%ent re"iew# "erify data +y
triangulating sources and contents# analy'e and interpret data to decipher the cultural
%eanings of e"ents, +eha"iors, and thoughts# and write autoethnography. =i;e
ethnographers, autoethnographers are e8pected to treat their auto+iographical data with
critical, analytical, and interpreti"e eyes to detect cultural undertones of what is recalled,
o+ser"ed, and told of the%. At the end of a thorough self&e8a%ination within its cultural
4
conte8t, autoethnographers hope to gain a cultural understanding of self and others.
Auto+iographical narrati"es will add li"e details to this principled understanding, +ut
narration should not do%inate autoethnography. 9n the following su+sections, 9 will
+rea; down the research process into two interconnected, not always se6uential, steps) (1,
co%posing auto+iographical field te8ts and (>, turning auto+iographical field te8ts into
autoethnography.
Co'$osin Autobiora$hical (iel" Te)ts
?he initial step of research in"ol"es collecting data, which continues throughout the
research process with different intensity at different points. Here 9 cautiously introduce a
new ter% Afield te8tsB +y Clandinin and Connelly (>..., to refer to Adata.B 9 will
so%eti%es use Afield te8tsB in lieu of AdataB when Aco%posing field te8tsB descri+es
%ore accurately what autoethnographers do. Since the ter% AdataB has +een traditionally
associated with 6uantitati"e research in6uiries and autoethnographers accu%ulate
"olu%inous te8ts as %ultiple data collection acti"ities progress, the ter% Afield te8tsB is
:ustifia+ly adopted as an alternati"e to Adata.B At the sa%e ti%e, 9 a% cautious of
replacing AdataB with Afield te8tsB co%pletely +ecause autoethnographical Afieldwor;B is
different fro% other 6ualitati"e in6uiries. Ehereas 6ualitati"e*ethnographic fieldwor; is
li;ely to ta;e place in an en"iron%ent where the researcher co%es in direct contact with
others, autoethnographic fieldwor; often in"ol"es others in the researchers7 recollection
and reflection.
Me%ory is +oth a friend and foe of autoethnographers. Ehereas it allows researchers
to tap into the wealth of data to which no one else has access, %e%ory selects, shapes,
li%its, and distorts. Me%ory fades as ti%e goes, +lurring the "itality of details. Dillard
2
(cited Clandinin and Connelly >..., recogni'es A+lurringB as As%oothFingG out details,
lea"ing a ;ind of sche%atic landscape outlineB (p. 0-,. Me%ory also triggers a"ersion
when it atte%pts to dig deeper into unpleasant past e8periences. <oster testifies to the
e8cruciating pain she e8perienced in recalling her childhood tainted with her %other7s
schi'ophrenia and the o+literating effect of the pain on her %e%ory until her
autoethnographic study helped her heal (<oster, McAllister, and O7Drien >..4,. Me%ory
can also select and e%+ellish pleasant %o%ents. O%ission and addition are natural
occurrences in our recalling. 9n the sa%e way as su+:ecti"ity, they are detri%ental to our
auto+iographic research endea"or unless they are properly recogni'ed and disciplined.
Co%posing field te8ts helps researchers +eco%e aware of the li%iting nature of
%e%ory and +ring details to the Asche%atic landscape outline.B Clandinin and Connelly
(>..., concur that field te8ts Ahelp fill in the richness, nuance, and co%ple8ity of the
landscape, returning the reflecting researcher to a richer, %ore co%ple8, and pu''ling
landscape than %e%ory alone is li;ely to constructB (p. 0-,.
Autoethnographers can use "arious techni6ues to facilitate their recalling, organi'e
%e%ories, and co%pose field te8ts as data. ?he techni6ues of data collection include, +ut
are not li%ited to, (1, using "isual tools such as free drawings of significant places,
A;insgra%s,B
1
and Aculturegra%sB
>
# (>, in"entorying people, artifacts, fa%ilial and
societal "alues and pro"er+s, %entors, cross&cultural e8periences, and fa"orite*disli;ed
acti"ities# (-, chronicling the autoethnographer7s educational history, typical day and
wee;, and annual life cycle# (3, reading and responding to other autoethnographies and
self&narrati"es# and (4, collecting other field te8ts such as stories of others, Astoried
poe%s,B personal :ournals, field notes, letters, con"ersation, inter"iews with significant
1
others, fa%ily stories, docu%ents, photographs, %e%ory +o8es, personal&fa%ily&social
artifacts, and life e8periences (Clandinin and Connelly >..., p. 1.1,. ?hese techni6ues
are ela+orated in %y +oo;, Autoethnography, to +e pu+lished +y =eft Coast Press in
>..1. Autoethnographers are co%%ended to de"elop their own techni6ues of data
collection to %eet their research goals.
One of the co%%only used data collection techni6ues for ethnography is participant&
o+ser"ation, in which researchers participate in the li"es of their infor%ants while
o+ser"ing their +eha"iors. 9n a si%ilar fashion to this, autoethnographers can o+ser"e
their own +eha"iors and docu%ent their thoughts while li"ing the%. Rodrigue' and
Rya"e (>..>, argue that self&o+ser"ation as a data collection techni6ue is useful +ecause
it gi"es access to Aco"ert, elusi"e, and*or personal e8periences li;e cogniti"e processes,
e%otions, %oti"es, concealed actions, o%itted actions, and socially restricted acti"itiesB
(p. -, and +rings to the surface what is Ata;en&for&granted, ha+ituated, and*or unconscious
%anner that FtheyGIare una"aila+le for recallB (p. 3,. Self&o+ser"ation %ay +e used in
the for% of self&introspection when autoethnographers are alone or in the for% of
Ainteracti"e introspectionB while the researchers interact with others. 9n the interacti"e
introspection, the researchers and the others can inter"iew each other Aas e6uals who try
to help one another reli"e and descri+e their recollection of e%otional e8periencesB (llis
1//1 cited Rodrigue' and Rya"e, p. 1,. Although Rodrigue' and Rya"e7s techni6ue of
Asyste%atic self&o+ser"ationB is originally suggested for studies that utili'e %ultiple
infor%ants who are instructed to conduct their own self&o+ser"ation, this techni6ue can
+e applied to autoethnography that focuses on one infor%ant, none other than self. <ield
0
:ournals or a self&de"eloped recording for% %ay +e used to docu%ent unstructured or
structured self&o+ser"ation.
9nter"iewing is another "ital data collection techni6ue e%ployed in ethnographic
fieldwor; (llis >..3# <ontana C <rey >...# Schensul, Schensul, C =eCo%pte 1///,.
?hrough inter"iewing with %yriad infor%ants, ethnographers gather infor%ation
una"aila+le fro% participant o+ser"ation. Ehen applied to autoethnography, inter"iews
with others fulfill a different goal. ?he inter"iews pro"ide not only outsider perspecti"es,
+ut also e8ternal data to confir%, co%ple%ent, or dispute internal data generated fro%
recollection and reflection. One ca"eat, howe"er, is that face&to&face inter"iew can
ha%per honest e8changes +etween inter"iewersJautoethnographers the%sel"esJand
inter"iewees. ?o o+tain %ore candid perspecti"es on autoethnographers fro%
inter"iewees, e8ternal inter"iewers or other creati"e alternati"es such as e%ail sur"ey or
6uestionnaire co%piled +y a third party %ay +e adopted.
Turnin Autobiora$hical (iel" Te)ts into Autoethnora$h%
9n 6ualitati"e research, the step of data collection is not always se6uential to or
separate fro% that of data analysis*interpretation. Rather, the data collection process is
often intertwined and interacti"e with data analysis and interpretation. 9n other words,
these acti"ities often ta;e place concurrently or infor% each other in a we+&li;e fashion.
<or e8a%ple, when autoethnographers recall past e8periences, they do not rando%ly
har"est +its of frag%ented %e%ories. Rather, they select so%e according to their
research focus and data collection criteria. "aluating certain e8periences against the
criteria is an analytical and interpreti"e acti"ity that is already at wor; during data
/
collection. During this data collection process, the researchers are also a+le to refine their
criteria, which will in turn shape the analysis and interpretation process.
Ehen analy'ing and interpreting autoethnographic field te8ts, autoethnographers
need to ;eep in %ind that what %a;es autoethnography ethnographical is its ethnographic
intent of gaining a cultural understanding of self that is inti%ately connected to others in
the society. ?he cultural %eanings of self7s thoughts and +eha"iorsJ"er+al and non&
"er+alJneed to +e interpreted in their cultural conte8t. 9nterpretation +egs a 6uestion of
AwhyB to +e answered) AEhy does a self percei"e, thin;, +eha"e, and e"aluate the way it
does and how does the self relate to others in thoughts and actionsKB Autoethnographic
data analysis and interpretation in"ol"es %o"ing +ac; and forth +etween self and others,
'oo%ing in and out of the personal and social real%, and su+%erging in and e%erging out
of data. =i;e other ethnographic in6uiries, this step of research process is
%ethodologically ne+ulous to descri+e and instruct +ecause analysis and interpretation
re6uire ethnographers7 holistic insight, creati"e %i8ing of %ultiple approaches, and
patience with uncertainty. Let so%e si%ple strategiesJsearching for recurring patterns,
applying e8isting theoretical fra%ewor;s, and co%pare&contrasting with other
autoethnographiesJcan +e adopted as a starter in the process of analysis and
interpretation.
?he interwea"ing of data collection, analysis, and interpretation ulti%ately leads to
the production of autoethnography. ?his %eans that auto+iographical writing cannot
co%e without a %ethodical process of ethnography and its focus on cultural
understanding. Howe"er, it does not %ean that writing can +egin only when
analysis*interpretation is co%pleted. Eolcott (>..1, suggests that ethnographers +egin
1.
writing earlier in the ethnographic process, e"en during the early stage of fieldwor;,
+ecause writing sti%ulates, helps organi'e, and facilitates the su+se6uent data
collection*analysis*interpretation process. ?his suggestion is useful for
autoethnographers.
?he writing style of autoethnography can "ary, falling so%ewhere in the continuu%s
+etween ArealistB description and Ai%pressionistB caricature and analytical description
and AconfessionalB self&e8posure. Han Maanen7s (1/00, classification of ethnographic
writings %ay help autoethnographers e8peri%ent with different styles such as Arealistic
tales,B Aconfessional tales,B and Ai%pressionist tales.B Realistic tales refer to %atter&of&
fact accounts and representations that ethnographers gi"e a+out people who% they ha"e
studied first hand. Realist tales are characteri'ed +y A%inute, so%eti%es precious, +ut
thoroughly %undane details of e"eryday life a%ong the people studiedB (p. 30, and
include Aaccounts and e8planations +y %e%+ers of the culture of the e"ents in their li"esB
(p. 3/,. thnographers who e%ploy realist tales tend to spea; of the people they ha"e
studied with the authority of an e8pert. 9n reaction to realist ethnographers7 una+ashed
clai% of authority o"er other people7s culture, those who practice confessional
ethnography e8pose Ahow particular wor;s FreallyG ca%e into +eingB (p. 13, in
confessional tales. APersonal +iases, character flaws, or +ad ha+its,B which Han Maanen
du+s as Ae%+arrassing,B are candidly displayed to de%ystify the ethnographic process
and to aug%ent a Areasona+ly unconta%inated and pure FethnographyG despite all the
+otherso%e pro+le%s e8posed in the confessionB (p. 10,. 9%pressionist tales highlight
ArareB and A%e%ora+leB fieldwor; e8periences (p. 1.>,. 9f realist tales focus on Athe
doneB and confessional tales on Athe doer,B Ai%pressionist tales present the doing of
11
fieldwor;B (p. 1.>,. 9f autoethnographers ;eep in %ind that these tales are originally
identified with ethnography and thus need to +e %odified when applied to
autoethnography, the different tales %ay pro"ide alternati"es in autoethnographic writing.
Ehiche"er style autoethnographers decide to e%ploy, autoethnographers are ad"ised not
to lose the sight of the 6uintessential identity of autoethnography as a cultural study of
self and others.
*ene!its o! Autoethnora$h%
Autoethnography is +eco%ing a useful and powerful tool for researchers and
practitioners who deal with hu%an relations in %ulticultural settings) e.g., educators,
social wor;ers, %edical professionals, clergy, and counselors. Denefits of
autoethnography lie in three areas) (1, it offers a research %ethod friendly to researchers
and readers# (>, it enhances cultural understanding of self and others# and (-, it has a
potential to transfor% self and others toward the cross&cultural coalition +uilding.
Methodologically spea;ing, autoethnography is researcher&friendly. ?his in6uiry
%ethod allows researchers to access easily the pri%ary data source fro% the +eginning
+ecause the source is the%sel"es. 9n addition, autoethnographers are pri"ileged with a
holistic and inti%ate perspecti"e on their Afa%iliar data.B ?his initial fa%iliarity gi"es
researchers an ad"antageous edge in data collection and in&depth data
analysis*interpretation.
Autoethnography is also reader&friendly in that the personally engaging writing style
tends to appeal to readers %ore than the con"entional scholarly writing. According to
1>
Mash (>..3,, Ascholarly personal narrati"esB li+erate researchers fro% a+stract,
i%personal writings and Atouch readers7 li"es +y infor%ing their e8periencesB (p. >0,.
$ergen and $ergen (>..>, also elo6uently state, A9n using oneself as an ethnographic
e8e%plar, the researcher is freed fro% the traditional con"entions of writing. One7s
uni6ue "oicingJco%plete with collo6uialis%s, re"er+erations fro% %ultiple
relationships, and e%otional e8pressi"enessJis honoredB (p. 13,. ?his uni6ue "oice of
the autoethnographer is what readers respond to.
Secondly, autoethnography is an e8cellent "ehicle through which researchers co%e to
understand the%sel"es and others. 9 found this +enefit particularly applica+le to %y
teaching of %ulticultural education. As a teacher educator, 9 feel co%pelled to prepare
%y students to +eco%e cross&culturally sensiti"e and effecti"e teachers for students of
di"erse cultural +ac;grounds. Self&reflection and self&e8a%ination are the ;eys to self&
understanding (<lorio&Ruane >..1# Mieto >..-,. @ennett (1///, concurs with other
ad"ocates of self&reflection, saying that AFwriting culturalG auto+iography allows students
to reflect on the forces that ha"e shaped their character and infor%ed their sense of selfB
(p. >-1,. ?he AforcesB that shape people7s sense of self include nationality, religion,
gender, education, ethnicity, socio&econo%ic class, and geography. !nderstanding Athe
forcesB also helps the% e8a%ine their preconceptions and feelings a+out others, whether
they are Aothers of si%ilarity,B Aothers of difference,B or e"en Aothers of oppositionB
(Chang, >..4,. Others of si%ilarity refer to %e%+ers of cultural groups that one +elongs
to, feels co%forta+le with, and share co%%on "alues with. Others of difference are those
who +elong to groups that ha"e different cultural standards than the self. Others of
1-
opposition are those who are considered as Aene%iesB to the self due to see%ingly
irreconcila+le differences.
Mot only writing one7s own autoethnography +ut also reading others7
autoethnography can e"o;e self&reflection and self&e8a%ination (<lorio&Ruane >..1#
Mash >..>,. Connelly shares a poignant story of how reading the self&narrati"e of his
doctoral student of Chinese heritage stirred up his childhood %e%ory of a Chinese store
owner fro% his rural ho%etown in Canada (Clandinin and Connelly >...,. ?hrough self&
reflection, he disco"ered shared hu%anity +etween this stranger of his childhood and
hi%self. ?his disco"ery of self and others is a definite +enefit of doing and sharing
autoethnographies.
?hirdly, doing, sharing, and reading autoethnography also help transfor% researchers
and readers (listeners, in the process. ?he transfor%ation of self and others is not
necessarily a pri%ary goal of autoethnography +ut a fre6uently occurring, powerful +y&
product of this research in6uiry. Coia and ?aylors7 (>..2, e8peri%entation with
Aco*autoethnographyB illustrates this +enefit. 9n this participatory process, the
researchers in"ol"ed their education students in writing their personal narrati"es, %eeting
in s%all groups wee;ly to share the narrati"es aloud and conduct a cultural analysis
colla+orati"ely, e8changing newly ac6uired self&awareness on Atheir past, present, and
future sel"es,B and ulti%ately AstrengthenFingG perspecti"e on teachingB (p. >1,. 9n the
end, the authors witnessed that students7 self&awareness and cultural understanding were
+roadened and their teaching philosophies and practices +eca%e %ore inclusi"e and
sensiti"e to others7 needs.
13
Self&transfor%ation %ay +e %anifested in different ways in the education field. So%e
%ay +eco%e %ore self&reflecti"e in their daily pra8is (<lorio&Ruane >..1# Mieto >..3#
O+idah and ?eel >..1,. Others %ay adopt Aculturally rele"ant pedagogyB when selecting
curriculu% content and pedagogical strategies, and interacting students, peer teachers,
and the co%%unity (=adson&Dillings 1//3,. Self&transfor%ation %ay also ta;e place as
they see; to reach out to unfa%iliar others and pursue a new learning of unfa%iliar
cultures. As their understanding of others increases, unfa%iliarity di%inishes and
perspecti"es on others change. As a result, others of difference and of opposition %ay +e
refra%ed to +e included in their notion of co%%unity, Ae8tended co%%unityB in
$reene7s (>..., ter%.
Another type of self&transfor%ation %ay acco%pany healings fro% the e%otional
scars of the past, which <oster illu%inated in her writing (<oster, McAllister, C O7Drien
>..4,. Dy sharing with others her painful e8perience of growing up with a %other with
schi'ophrenia and understanding the cultural root of her Awounds,B <oster e8perienced
li+eration and relief fro% the +urden of isolation, loneliness, and sha%e. ?he li+erating
force of autoethnography was the foundation of self&e%power%ent for <oster.
Ehen %anifested in increased self&reflection, adoption of the culturally rele"ant
pedagogy, desire to learn a+out Aothers of difference,B de"elop%ent of an inclusi"e
co%%unity, or self&healing, the self&transfor%ati"e potential of autoethnography is
uni"ersally +eneficial to those who wor; with people fro% di"erse cultural +ac;grounds.
?hrough the increased awareness of self and others, they will +e a+le to help the%sel"es
and each other correct cultural %isunderstandings, de"elop cross&cultural sensiti"ity, and
respond to the needs of cultural others effecti"ely.
14
Pit!alls to A+oi" in Doin Autoethnora$h%
9n the shadow of the growing interest and support of autoethnographic research
%ethods, criti6ues are lur;ing. ?he criticis% of autoethnography does not necessarily
i%ply that this in6uiry is inherently faulty. Rather, it re%inds researchers to loo; out
"igilantly for appropriate application of this research in6uiry and to a"oid potential
pitfalls. Here are fi"e pitfalls that autoethnographers need to watch out) (1, e8cessi"e
focus on self in isolation of others# (>, o"ere%phasis on narration rather than analysis and
cultural interpretation# (-, e8clusi"e reliance on personal %e%ory and recalling as a data
source# (3, negligence of ethical standards regarding others in self&narrati"es# and (4,
inappropriate application of the la+el Aautoethnography.B
?he first pitfall relates to the "ery notion of culture. 9n the %inds of anthropologists,
culture is inherently a group&oriented concept. Culture and people ha"e a sy%+iotic
relationship according to de Munc; (>..., who says) ACulture would cease to e8ist
without the indi"iduals who %a;e it upI. Culture re6uires our presence as indi"iduals.
Eith this sy%+iosis, self and culture together %a;e each other up and, in that process,
%a;e %eaningB (pp. 1&>,. ?herefore, the notion of culture predisposes the co&presence of
others e"en in a discussion of Aindi"idual cultureBJApropriospectB in $oodenough7s
(1/01, and Eolcott7s (1//1, ter% and Aidio"erseB in Schwart'7 ter% (1/10 cited de
Munc; >...,. Dy these authors, an indi"idual culture is an indi"idual "ersion of their
group cultures, which they construct in relationship with others. Autoethnography,
therefore, should reflect the interconnecti"ity of self and others. !nfortunately the
%ethodological focus on self is so%eti%es %isconstrued as a license to dig deeper in
12
personal e8periences without digging wider into the cultural conte8t of the indi"idual
stories co%%ingled with others. Autoethnographers should +e warned that self&indulgent
introspection is li;ely to produce a self&e8posing story +ut not autoethnography.
Second, autoethnographers swept +y the power of story telling can easily neglect the
"ery i%portant %ission of autoethnographyJcultural interpretation and analysis of
auto+iographic te8ts. Self&narration is "ery engaging to writers as well as readers and
listeners (<oster, McAllister, C O7Drien >..4# Mash >..3# ?o%p;ins 1//2,. Let, as Coia
and ?aylor (>..2, say, A9t is not enough si%ply to tell the story or write a :ournal entryB
(p. 1/, for the cultural understanding of self to ta;e place. !nless autoethnographers stay
focused on their research purpose, they can +e te%pted to settle for ela+orate narrati"es
with underde"eloped cultural analysis and interpretation.
?hird, autoethnographers can fall into the pitfall of o"er&relying on their personal
%e%ory as the source of data. Personal %e%ory is a %ar"elous and uni6ue source of
infor%ation for autoethnographers. 9t taps into the reser"oir of data to which other
ethnographers ha"e no access. Let, Muncey (>..4, re%inds us, AMe%ory is selecti"e
and shaped, and is retold in the continuu% of one7s e8perience, FalthoughG this does not
necessarily constitute lyingB (p. >,. Me%ory can censor past e8periences. Ehen data is
collected fro% a single tool without other %easures for chec;s and +alances, the "alidity
of data can +e 6uestioned. Ehen the single tool is the researcher self, the un+ridled
su+:ecti"ity of autoethnographers can +e %ore se"erely challenged. Although the
o+session with o+:ecti"ity is not necessary for 6ualitati"e research, autoethnographers
need to support their argu%ents with +road&+ased data li;e in any good research practice.
<or this reason, they can easily co%ple%ent AinternalB data generated fro% researchers7
11
%e%ory with Ae8ternalB data fro% outside sources, such as inter"iews, docu%ents, and
artifacts. Multiple sources of data can pro"ide +ases for triangulation that will help
enhance content accuracy and "alidity of the autoethnographic writing.
?he fourth pitfall ste%s fro% a false notion that confidentiality does not apply to self&
narrati"e studies +ecause researchers use their auto+iographical stories. Playing the
%ulti&faceted role of a researcher, infor%ant, and author, autoethnographers %ay +e
te%pted to clai% full authorship and responsi+ility for their stories without hesitation.
Clandinin and Connelly7 (>..., poignant 6uestion to narrati"e in6uirers, ADo they own a
story +ecause they tell itK,B should e6ually challenge autoethnographers. Since
autoethnographers7 personal stories are often lin;ed to stories of others, howe"er e8plicit
the lin;age is, the principle of protecting confidentiality of people in the story is :ust as
rele"ant to autoethnography. Since %ain characters re"eal their identities in
autoethnography, it is e8tre%ely difficult to protect fully others inti%ately connected to
these ;nown characters. Let, autoethnographers, li;e other researchers of hu%an
su+:ects, are charged to adhere to the ethical principle of confidentiality. ?his in6uiry
%ethod de%ands %ore creati"ity in practicing it.
?he last pitfall concerns the confusion in using the ter% Aautoethnography.B As 9
discussed earlier in this chapter, the ter% has +een used to refer to a "ariety of narrati"e
in6uiries sprung up in different acade%ic disciplines. ?he %i8ed +ag la+eled with
AautoethnographyB has confused researchers as well as readers. Since no one can clai%
an e8clusi"e license to use this la+el, it is the researcher7s responsi+ility to +eco%e
infor%ed of the %ultiple usage of the ter% and to define their use clearly to a"oid
confusion. ?hat is precisely what Eolcott (>..3, does in his article, Athnographic
10
Auto+iography.B Although %y use of autoethnography differs fro% what he proposesJ
lea"ing the ter% to the original %eaning +y Hayano who refers to autoethnography as a
study of the researcher7s own peopleJhis conscious clarification of the ter% clearly
orients readers. Eith the rigorous effort to distinguish autoethnography fro% other self&
narrati"e in6uiries, readers will +e a+le to understand this research %ethod for what it
stands for, distinguishing it fro% highly descripti"e self&narrati"es such as
auto+iography and %e%oir.
Conclusion
As the outgoing president of the Council on Anthropology and ducation (a
su+di"ision of A%erican Anthropological Association,, =eCo%pte (1/01, once asserted
in her speech, later pu+lished as article, that all research endea"ors are auto+iographic. 9
understood her re%ar; to i%ply that research topics, %ethods, and processes that we
select reflect our personal interest, +iases, and circu%stances. Ehen 9 reflect on %y
ethnographic and 6ualitati"e wor;s, 9 find her co%%ent insightful and accurate.
My preference of case&specific narrati"es, field&+ased research %ethods, and
adolescents has led %e through a series of ethnographic*6ualitati"e studies. Deginning
with A%erican high school students on the Eest Coast of the !. S. A. (Chang, 1//>a,, 9
%o"ed on to a study of @orean fe%ale students in a "ocational high school (Cho C
Chang, 1/0/# Chang, >...,, to @orean&A%erican high school students (1//>+,, and to
Christian high school students in Pennsyl"ania (Chang, 1//0,. Henues ha"e changed,
1/
+ut %y dogged co%%it%ent to ethnography and adolescents has persisted. Ehat is the
cultural root of %y persistenceK
Searching for answers to 6uestions such as this is what autoethnographers do and
what 9 ha"e done in %y autoethnography. Although 9 reser"e an ela+orate cultural
analysis of %yself for another place, here 9 can safely note that the research process has
+een e%powering and transfor%ati"e. My teaching and doing autoethnography has
helped %y students and %e (1, connect our indi"idual past with our indi"idual and
collecti"e present, (>, understand culturally rooted reasons for our co%fort with others
of si%ilarity, disco%fort with others of difference, and a"ersion with others of
opposition, and (-, epand this understanding into culturally unfa%iliar territories.
Opening&up to the new understanding and new possi+ility is the definite +enefit of
autoethnography, which gi"es a foundation to cross&cultural coalition +uilding to
e%+race others, e"en others of opposition, in the %ulticultural society.

En"notes
1. ?he A;insgra%B refers to a ;inship diagra% that "isually shows one7s relation to other
%e%+ers in his*her ;inship structure, created or dissol"ed +y +irth*death,
%arriage*di"orce, and other for%s of attach%ent*separation. @inship diagra% is often
adopted in anthropological fieldwor; (see Dates and <rat;in >..-, p. >0># and Puples
and Dailey >..-, p. 1/.,.
>. ?he Aculturegra%,B a self&coined ter%, refers to a we+&li;e chart on which
autoethnographers display their %ulti&faceted self&identity in ter%s of %ulticultural
>.
categories such as nationality, ethnicity, race, language, gender, religion, socio&econo%ic
class, and other interests (Chang, >..>,.
Re!erences
DA?S, D.$. C <RA?@9M, .M., >..-., !ultural anthropology. -
rd
ed. Doston, MA)
Pearson.
Dut', D.

& Besio, K., 2004. The value of autoethnography for field research in transcultural settings. Professional
geographer, 56 (3), 30!3"0.
CHAM$, H., 1//>a. Adolescent life and ethos: an ethnography of a US high school"
=ondon, !@) <al%er Press.
CHAM$, H., 1//>+. Persist or perish in the 6ualitati"e studies of adolescents)
strategies to win a silent negotiation. #$$% &U'( conference proceedings" Athens, $A)
!ni"ersity of $eorgia.
CHAM$, H., 1//0. 9s cultural di"ersity a friend or a foeK) an ethnography of
Christian schools. Paper presented at the 1//0 Acade%ic <esti"al, astern College, St.
Da"ids, PA.
CHAM$, H., >.... ?riple :eopardy in identity for%ation) @orean ur+an girls in an
e"ening co%%ercial high school. Paper presented at the !r+an $irls Conference, S!ML,
Duffalo, ML.
CHAM$, H. >..>. Cultural auto+iography) self&reflecti"e practices for %ulticultural
educators,B Paper presented at the CC? ducation >..> Conference, Cal"in College,
>1
$rand Rapids, Ml
CHAM$, H., >..4. Self&narrati"es for Christian %ulticultural educators) a pathway to
understanding self and others. A )ournal of the international co**unity of !hristians in
teacher education FonlineG, 1 (1,. A"aila+le fro%
http)**www.iccte:ournal.org*9CC?Nournal*pastOissues*"ol1issue1*"1i1chang FAccessed
>2 <e+ruary >..2G.
CHO, . C CHAM$, H., 1/0/. =ife and "alue syste% of e"ening girls7 co%%ercial
high school students in @orea (written in @orean,. Annual +ournal of Soong Sil arts and
sciences research institute, #$, 11&-0.
CO9A, =. C ?AL=OR, M., >..2. <ro% the inside out and the outside in)
co*autoethnography as a %eans of professional renewal. 'n: C. @osni; et al, eds. Ma,ing
a difference in teacher education through self-study. A%sterda%, Metherlands) Springer,
1/&--.
C=AMD9M9M, D.N. C COMM==L, <. M., >.... .arrati/e in0uiry: eperience and
story in 0ualitati/e research" San <rancisco, CA) Nossey&Dass.
D M!MC@, H., >.... !ulture, self, and *eaning" Prospect Heights, 9=) Ea"eland.
DMP9M, M. C =9MCO=M, L., >.... Hand1oo, of 0ualitati/e research. >
nd
ed.
?housand Oa;s, CA) Sage.
D9==ARD, AMM9, 1/01. An A*erican childhood" Doston, MA) $.@. Hall.
>>
==9S, C. 1//1. Sociological introspection and e%otional e8perience. Sy*1olic
interaction, #2" >-&4."
==9S, C. >..3. An ethnographic ': a *ethodological no/el a1out autoethnography"
Ealnut Cree;, CA) Alta%ira.
==9S, C. C DOCHMR, A. P., >.... Autoethnography, personal narrati"e, and
personal refle8i"ity. 'n: Den'in, M. C =incoln, L., >.... Hand1oo, of 0ualitati/e
research. >
nd
ed. ?housand Oa;s, CA) Sage, 1--&120.
<OM?AMA, A. C <RL, N. H., >.... ?he inter"iew for% structured 6uestions to
negotiated te8t. 'n: Den'in, M. C =incoln, L., >.... Hand1oo, of 0ualitati/e research.
>
nd
ed. ?housand Oa;s, CA) Sage, 234&21>.
<=OR9O&R!AM, S., >..1. 3eacher education and the cultural i*agination.
Mahwah, MN) =awrence rl+au%.
<OS?R, @., MCA==9S?R, M., C O7DR9M, =., >..4. Co%ing to
autoethnography) a %ental health nurse7s e8perience. 'nternational +ournal of 0ualitati/e
*ethods FonlineG, 2 (3,, A"aila+le fro%
http)**www.ual+erta.ca*Qi:6%*+ac;issues*3O3*ht%l*foster.ht% FAccessed / <e+ruary
>..2G.
$R$M, M., C $R$M, @., >..>. thnographic representation as relationship.
'n: A. Dochner C C. llis, eds. Ethnographically spea,ing: autoethnography, literature,
and aesthetics" Ealnut Cree;, CA) Alta%ira, 11&--.
>-
$OODMO!$H, E., 1/01. !ulture, language, and society. Menlo Par;, CA) ?he
Den:a%in*Cu%%ings Pu+lishing Co%pany.
$RM, M., >.... ?he passions of pluralis%) %ulticulturalis% and the e8panding
co%%unity. 'n: N. Moel, ed., Sources: nota1le selection in *ulticultural education"
$uilford, C?) Dush;in*Mc$raw&Hill, -0&32.
HALAMO, D. M., 1/1/. Auto&ethnography) paradig%s, pro+le%s, and prospects.
Hu*an organization, -0 (1,, //&1.3.
H9DR, @.$., 1/14. Ehat do people doK Dani auto&ethnography. )ournal of
anthropological research, -1, -&11.
@MM?, C. =. 1///. Saying %ore than hello) creating insightful cross&cultural
con"ersations. 'n: D. C. lliott C S. D. Holtrop, eds. .urturing and reflecti/e teachers: a
!hristian approach for the %#
st
century. Clare%ont, CA) =earning =ight ducational
Consulting and Pu+lishing, >>/&>30.
=ADSOM&D9==9M$S, $., 1//3. 3he drea*,eepers: successful teachers of African
A*erican children" San <rancisco, CA) Nossey&Dass.
=COMP?, M., 1/01. Dias in the +iography) +ias and su+:ecti"ity in ethnographic
research. Anthropology and education quarterly,18 (#), 43!2.
M!MCL, ?., >..4. Doing autoethnography. 'nternational +ournal of 0ualitati/e
*ethods FonlineG, 2 (1,, 1&1>. A"aila+le fro%
>3
http)**www.ual+erta.ca*Qii6%*+ac;issues*3O1*pdf*Muncey.pdf FAccessed / <e+rurary
>..2G.
MASH, R.N., >..>. Spirituality, ethics, religion, and teaching: A professor4s +ourney.
Mew Lor;) Peter =ang.
MASH, R.N., >..3. Li1erating scholarly writing: the power of personal narrati/e.
Mew Lor;) ?eachers College Press.
M9?O, S., >..-. 5hat ,eeps teachers going6 Mew Lor;) ?eachers College.
M9?O, S., >..3. Affir*ing di/ersity: the sociopolitical contet of *ulticultural
education. 3
th
ed. Doston, MA. ) Allyn and Dacon.
OD9DAH, N.. C ?=, @.M., >..1. 7ecause of the ,ids: facing racial and cultural
differences in schools" Mew Lor;) ?eachers College.
P!P=S, N. C DA9=L, $., >..-. Hu*anity: introduction to cultural anthropology.
Dalti%ore, MD) Eadsworth.
RD&DAMAHAL, D. ., ed., 1//1. Auto/ethnography: rewriting the self and the
social" Mew Lor;) O8ford.
RODR9$!P, M. C RLAH, A., >..>. Syste*atic self-o1ser/ation" ?housand Oa;s,
CA) Sage.
SCHMS!=, S.=., SCHMS!=, N.N., C =COMP?, M.D., 1///. Essential
ethnographic *ethods: o1ser/ations, inter/iews, and 0uestionnaires" Ealnut Cree;, CA)
Alta%ira.
>4
SCHEAR?P, ?., 1/10. Ehere is the cultureK Personality as the locus of culture. 'n:
$. De Hos, ed. Ma,ing of psychological anthropology. Der;eley) !ni"ersity of
California, 31/&331.
?OMP@9MS, N.P., 1//2. A life in school: what the teacher learned. Reading, MA)
Perseus Doo;s.
HAM MAAMM, N., 1/00. 3ales of the field: on writing ethnography" Chicago, 9=)
!ni"ersity of Chicago.
EO=CO??, H.<., 1//1. Propriospect and the ac6uisition of culture. Anthropology and
education quarterly, 22 (3), 2#!2$3.
EO=CO??, H.<., >..1. 5riting up 0ualitati/e research. >
nd
ed. ?housand Oa;s, CA)
Sage.
EO=CO??, H.<., >..3. ?he ethnographic auto+iography. Auto/7iography, #%, /-&
1.2.