Autoethnography

Autoethnography is a combination of autobiography and ethnography. It is an approach to research and writing that describes and analyzes personal experiences in order to understand cultural experiences. In my mind authoethnography brings a creative approach to research. Grant co-wrote this article with Zeeman based off his own personal narrative. Grant’s personal account of being a young child in Scotland reveals his various struggles. However, his personal account also reveals that his past “story” and identity was able to be re-inscribed into a better and successful future, due to his engagement with higher education.

Autoethnography is interesting to me in many ways. Essentially by allowing a researcher to add in personal experiences, a lot of missing but very vital information is brought to light. The researcher is not separated from the research, but they are apart of the research. This additional personal experience is useful when attempting to understand cultural experiences. By understanding this experience one can even expose oppression and give voice to oppressed. In Grant’s case, at a school where only the best students were noticed and highlighted, no one saw or took note of his suffering. However, because of his access to higher education he was able to transform himself and write this article for other individuals to use and draw upon. This article sheds light on various institutions who are guilty of following the status quo. I would have liked for Grant to be more specific in regards to how his engagement with higher education specifically caused a transformation within him. Adding this to his article could also have been beneficial to any reader with a similar experience.

Another example in which autoethnography could be especially helpful for the oppressed and understanding cultural experiences can be found in test scores. One could just look at a state’s test scores and make judgments and conclusions. However, by adding in autoethnography an explanation can be made for these scores. Many inner city schools lack appropriate educational resources which can directly lead to low test scores. Without the personal addition, sample conclusions that could be made may include: changing the curriculum, removing/replacing teachers, or even closing the school or c the conclusion can become improve the access to educational resources. The additional personal story/experience changes the conclusions made about these particular schools to include: having educational resources more readily available for schools, additional textbooks, supplies etc., or even adding money into certain school budgets. Essentially autoethnography creates a bride.

I can see autoethnography possibly being useful for my research question. My topic being based on Ebonics and code-switching is a personal experience for me. For years I’ve loved to read and write. I’ve always wanted to be an author but it wasn’t until recently that I’ve been able to say that dream out loud. Questions about who would listen, who would care and was I even good enough, all stopped me from wanting to have my voice heard. When I started writing, I wrote in the language I was most familiar with and the one I grew up with. But once I started school a lot of my writings were shot down, marked up or considered to be incorrect. I thought my voice and my writings were wrong. I thought I wasn’t worthy to be a writer. This is similar to the many students I teach on a daily basis. So many of them write in the language (Ebonics) they are most familiar with and many of their teachers dismiss their writings. But is this because they truly lack the academic writing skills, or is it because the teachers see the Ebonics language and have already formed an opinion of the student’s writings? For years Ebonics had been looked at as an inhibitor for students. My experience has shown me the opposite and I want my research to shed light on how Ebonics impacts a student’s academic writing.

The discussion Grant led with Zeeman benefited this article in my opinion. During their discussion I gained insight into various theorists and Grant was able to further explain the importance of his experience. Zeeman brings up Morgan (2000) who claims that you can re-frame your life by means of therapeutic inquiry. I agree wholeheartedly with this claim. This is why I stress the importance of journaling for myself and for my students. This also reminds me of the memoir class that I’m currently taking. Many of the authors whose books we’ve read seem to use their memoir as a way to understand, comprehend and come to terms with their experiences. Do all autoethnographies need to bring in an outside person and conduct some type of discussion based off your personal experience?

As much as I like autoethnography I question what comes after it, which is similar to how Zeeman asked Grant what he was hoping to accomplish with his autoethnography. What kind of academic convention did Grant hope to accomplish? It’s great to learn gain cultural understanding and expose oppression, but what comes next? How do we combat the different things that autoethnography uncovers? I also question if becoming personal with your research will add any biases. If there are any biases in your research, can your research still be valid? How do you balance adding your personal experiences but now allow these personal experiences to cloud your researching judgement?