International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2) June 2006

An Autoethnography on Learning
about Autoethnography

Sarah Wall

Sarah Wall, BScN, MHSA, Doctoral Student, Department of Sociology,

University of Alberta, and CIHR Strategic Training Fellow, International
Institute for Qualitative Methodology, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
Canada

Abstract: Autoethnography is an emerging qualitative research method that

allows the author to write in a highly personalized style, drawing on his or
her experience to extend understanding about a societal phenomenon.
Autoethnography is grounded in postmodern philosophy and is linked to
growing debate about reflexivity and voice in social research. The intent of
autoethnography is to acknowledge the inextricable link between the per-
sonal and the cultural and to make room for nontraditional forms of inquiry
and expression. In this autoethnography, the author explores the state of un-
derstanding regarding autoethnography as a research method and describes
the experience of an emerging qualitative researcher in learning about this
new and ideologically challenging genre of inquiry.

Keywords: autoethnography, personal narrative, qualitative methods, self Author’s note

I thank Dr. Maria Mayan for her en-
couragement, support, and construc-
tive suggestions during the pre
Citation -paration of this article. Thanks are
Wall, S. (2006). An autoethnography on learning about autoethnography. also extended to the anonymous re-
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2), Article 9. Retrieved viewers of an earlier version of this
article for their helpful comments.
[date] from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_2/pdf/wall.pdf
2 Wall AUTOETHNOGRAPHY

can write this down now. It has been swirling by only a select and elite few (my earlier conception
I around in my head for a month, the readings mixing
with my thoughts and reactions, but I did not know
just how to put it down on paper. So much of what I
being that I might never become competent in such a
difficult field). So strong is the positivist tradition that
researchers who use even well-established qualitative
want to say about autoethnography is about me, not it. I research methods are continually asked to defend their
am surprised at the difficulty of this task. When I hap- research as valid science (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).
pened on a brief mention of autobiographical methods Ways of inquiry that connect with real people, their
during the course of my regular reading, I realized that lives, and their issues are seen as soft and fluffy and, al-
I wanted to know more about it. Quite unexpectedly, though nice, not valuable in the scientific community.
my curiosity turned into a foray into postmodern phi- With the rise of postmodern philosophy and my
losophy and critical theory, reflexivity and voice, vari- awareness of it, this is changing, and I am able to learn
ous vague approaches to autobiographical inquiry, to think differently about what constitutes knowing.
validity and acceptability, defences and criticisms, and The essence of postmodernism is that many ways of
a wide range of published personal narratives, the typi- knowing and inquiring are legitimate and that no one
cal product of autoethnography. I was confronted, way should be privileged. “It distrusts abstract expla-
challenged, moved, and changed by what I learned. nation and holds that research can never do more than
Therefore, in keeping with the essence of describe, with all descriptions equally valid . . . [Any]
autoethnography, I finally came to the realization that I researcher can do no more than describe his or her per-
could share my experience of learning about sonal experiences” (Neuman, 1994, p. 74). Several re-
autoethnography and, in the text, co-mingle me and it. searchers have highlighted the presence of the
Autoethnographies “are highly personalized accounts researcher’s rhetoric, prejudice, and experience in the
that draw upon the experience of the author/researcher interpretation of observations and numbers and the
for the purposes of extending sociological understand- way in which they simply construct one interpretation
ing” (Sparkes, 2000, p. 21). An autoethnography “lets from among many that could be consistent with their
you use yourself to get to culture” (Pelias, 2003, numerical data analysis. They have also revealed how
p. 372). My personal struggles and conclusions reflect data can be socially constructed (see, for example,
the dynamics in the academic community as we seek to Bloor, Goldberg & Emslie, 1991; Garkinkel, 1967;
balance excellence in inquiry with constant growth and Gephart, 1988; Knorr-Cetina, 1991). This has been im-
learning. portant in breaking down the façade of objectivity and
freedom from bias in the dominant positivist paradigm,
PHILOSOPHICAL AND lending support for research methods that rely more on
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR subjectivity, such as qualitative methods as a whole.
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL METHODS However, postmodernism creates a context of doubt, in
which all methods are subject to critique but are not au-
Traditional scientific approaches, still very much at tomatically rejected as false. The goal of postmodern-
play today, require researchers to minimize their ism is not to eliminate the traditional scientific method
selves, viewing self as a contaminant and attempting to but to question its dominance and to demonstrate that it
transcend and deny it. The researcher ostensibly puts is possible to gain and share knowledge in many ways.
bias and subjectivity aside in the scientific research From a postmodern viewpoint, having a partial, local,
process by denying his or her identity. “Concerns and/or historical knowledge is still knowing (Richard-
about the situatedness of the knower, the context of son, 2000). All assumptions inherent in established re-
discovery, and the relation of the knower to the sub- search methods (both qualitative and quantitative) are
jects of her inquiry are demons at the door of positivist questioned, and we are encouraged to “abandon all es-
science. The production of [what has always been con- tablished and preconceived values, theories, perspec-
sidered to be] ‘legitimate’ knowledge begins by slam- tives . . . and prejudices as resources for . . . study”
ming the door shut” (McCorkel & Myers, 2003, (Vidich & Lyman, 2000, p. 60).
p. 200). The postmodern era has made it possible for critical
From a positivist perspective, there is only one way theories to emerge and take hold in academic inquiry
to “do science,” and any intellectual inquiry must con- and to open up the possible range of research strate-
form to established research methods. Most people, gies. For example, feminist theory, and feminist re-
like me, have grown up believing that positivism is sci- search using multiple research techniques, has grown
ence (Neuman, 1994). Without knowing about the al- in reaction to the “male-oriented perspective that has
ternatives, I have been socialized to believe that “real” predominated in the development of social science”
science is quantitative, experimental, and understood (Neuman, 1994, p. 72). Many feminist writers now ad-

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2) June 2006

http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/
 Wall AUTOETHNOGRAPHY 3

vocate for research that starts with one’s own experi- As we are still dealing with this “crisis” (Denzin &
ence (Ellis, 2004). In contrast to the dominant, Lincoln, 1994), it has become increasingly apparent
objective, competitive, logical male point of view, that the studied world can be captured only from the
feminist researchers “emphasize the subjective, empa- perspective of the researcher (Denzin & Lincoln,
thetic, process-oriented, and inclusive sides of social 1994). From the time that traditional ethnography was
life” (Neuman, 1994, p. 72). first criticized and experimental writing was first ex-
Other emancipatory theories, such as those aimed at plored, “the question [has been] raised about political
addressing the power imbalances associated with race and cultural representation—not only about who
and class, also find a space in postmodernity. Aca- should represent whom but what should be the forms of
demic writers are beginning to acknowledge the nor- representation in relationship to hegemonic practices”
mative value of inquiry. Critics of scientific traditions (Clough, 2000, p. 283). In research that seeks to dis-
have argued for the abandonment of rationality, objec- cover personal experience, there is a unique relation-
tivity, and truth to move social science beyond a focus ship between researcher and participant, and the issue
on method, toward the power of social research to have of voice arises (Clandinin & Connelly, 1994). It is sug-
a moral effect (Bochner, 2001). Stivers (1993) has gested that the freedom of a researcher to speak as a
stated that a vision of universal truth is really just a player in a research project and to mingle his or her ex-
dream of power over others and that liberatory, perience with the experience of those studied is pre-
emancipatory projects are better served by alternative cisely what is needed to move inquiry and knowledge
knowledge production process. further along. If a researcher’s voice is omitted from a
This is the philosophical open door into which text, the writing is reduced to a mere summary and in-
autoethnography creeps. The questioning of the domi- terpretation of the works of others, with nothing new
nant scientific paradigm, the making of room for other added (Clandinin & Connelly, 1994). Taking the ques-
ways of knowing, and the growing emphasis on the tion of voice and representation a step further, we
power of research to change the world create a space could argue that an individual is best situated to de-
for the sharing of unique, subjective, and evocative sto- scribe his or her own experience more accurately than
ries of experience that contribute to our understanding anyone else. Ellis (1991), a strong advocate emo-
of the social world and allow us to reflect on what tion-based, autobiographical inquiry, has suggested
could be different because of what we have learned. As that a social scientist who has lived through an experi-
a woman in a man’s world, a nurse in a doctors’ world, ence and has consuming, unanswered questions about
and a qualitative researcher coming from a positivist it can use introspection as a data source and, following
discipline (health services research), I find that the re- accepted practices of field research, study him- or her-
lentless nudging of autoethnography against the world self as with any “n” of 1. “Experimental writing means
of traditional science holds wonderful, symbolic, re-thinking the condition of representation and there-
emancipatory promise. It says that what I know mat- fore [engaging] with figures of subjectivity that do not
ters. How much more promise could it hold for people depend on representation as it has been understood”
far more marginalized than I? I am warming up to this (Clough, 2000, p. 286).
method. Although many qualitative researchers are now
aware of the need for genuine and thorough reflection
REFLEXIVITY AND VOICE on the research process and their role in it, Pillow
(2003) has been critical of reflexivity that merely ac-
The research community is relatively comfortable with knowledges the researcher’s perspective or attempts to
the concept of reflexivity, in which the researcher convey a greater truthfulness or awareness of other.
pauses for a moment to think about how his or her pres- The emergence of autoethnography as a method of in-
ence, standpoint, or characteristics might have influ- quiry moves researchers’ “use of self-observation as
enced the outcome of the research process. However, part of the situation studied to self-introspection or
new “methods” such as autoethnography, founded on self-ethnography as a legitimate focus of study in and
postmodern ideas, challenge the value of token reflec- of itself” (Ellis, 1991, p. 30). New epistemologies
tion that is often included as a paragraph in an other- (such as autoethnography) from previously silenced
wise neutral and objectively presented manuscript. groups remove the risks inherent in the representation
Denzin and Lincoln (1994) have referred to this call to of others, allow for the production of new knowledge
genuine reflexivity as the “crisis of representation” by a unique and uniquely situated researcher, and offer
(p. 10), which began in the mid-1980s, with the appear- small-scale knowledge that can inform specific prob-
ance of a number of noted publications that questioned lems and specific situations (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).
traditional notions of science.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2) June 2006

http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/
4 Wall AUTOETHNOGRAPHY

Autoethnography also challenges traditional writ- have listed almost a page of terms that have been at-
ing conventions that attempt to validate empirical sci- tached to autobiographical research and argued that
ence and uphold the power that accompanies scientific
knowledge. In the traditional paradigm, research that it seems appropriate now to include under the
has been conducted according to established methods broad rubric of autoethnography those studies
must also be reported in a standardized format. that have been referred to by other similarly situ-
ated terms, such as personal narratives . . . lived
How we are expected to write affects what we experience, critical autobiography . . . evocative
can write about . . . The conventions hold tre- narratives . . . reflexive ethnography . . .
mendous material and symbolic power over [re- ethnographic autobiography . . . autobiographi-
searchers]. Using them increases the probability cal ethnography, personal sociology . . . [and]
of [acceptance] but they are not . . . evidence of autoanthropology. (pp. 739-740)
greater—or lesser—truth value . . . than . . . writ-
ing using other conventions. (Richardson, 2000, They noted, however, that the term autoethnography
p. 7) has been in use for more than 20 years (originated by
Hayano, 1979) and has become the term of choice in
What I see as most significant is that traditional re- describing studies of a personal nature (Ellis, 2004;
search and writing conventions create only the illusion Ellis & Bochner, 2000). I can see that there is value in
that the knowledge produced is more legitimate. As for the standardization of terminology with respect to this
me, I have been a blind follower of convention. When I method, as it would allow for unified advances in us-
wrote my first autoethnography, I asked my supervisor ing, appreciating, and understanding this method.
if I was “allowed” to write that kind of article, given “Autoethnography” builds on a familiar qualitative re-
that it was not research. Originally coauthored, that ar- search term while introducing a whole new way of pur-
ticle was written in the first person plural, the use of suing social knowledge. However, given that there
“we” somehow symbolic of corroborated and therefore have been and are many other terms in circulation, I
more legitimate knowledge than just something “I” would like to discuss the method as it is put forward by
had to share. This is the first article I have ever written researchers who use differing terms. Moustakas
in the first person, so difficult is it to break away from (1990), writing from as early as the late 1960s, labeled
long-held beliefs about the legitimacy of what I know. the method heuristic inquiry. Ellis and Bochner, as
Clearly, I am not alone in my uncertainty regarding my noted, have referred to the method as autoethnography,
knowledge and its presentation. “For many, especially and a number of authors simply present the method and
for women being educated as researchers, voice is an its product as personal narrative.
acknowledgment that they have something to say” First, heuristic inquiry (Moustakas, 1990) has
(Clandinin & Connelly, 1994, p. 423). The potential arisen from the phenomenological tradition and began
power of autoethnography to address unanswered with a question that has been a personal challenge for
questions and include the new and unique ideas of the the researcher. The aim is to “awaken and inspire re-
researcher is inspiring to me as one who wishes to find searchers to make contact with and respect their own
my niche and make my own special contribution. Cer- questions and problems, to suggest a process that af-
tainly my knowledge has jumped forward through my firms imagination, intuition, self-reflection, and the
encounter with this emerging, unconventional method, tacit dimension as valid ways in the search for knowl-
in contrast with the slower, incremental growth that I edge and understanding” (Douglass & Moustakas,
have experienced in interacting with more traditional 1985, p. 40). The basic design of a heuristic research
approaches and texts. I cannot deny that my conven- project involves six steps: initial engagement, immer-
tional habits are challenged by this entirely new way of sion, incubation, illumination, explication, and culmi-
thinking, but I suspect it is precisely the fact that I am nation in a creative synthesis (Moustakas, 1990).
forced to bend in a new way that is the reason behind Initial engagement with a research topic occurs with
the growth I see in myself. the discovery of an intense interest, a passionate con-
cern that is not only personally meaningful but has
UNDERSTANDING THE broader social implications. In this phase, intense in-
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL METHOD trospection allows a question to emerge. Immersion in-
volves sustained focus and total concentration on the
Ironically, perhaps, my use of the term question and a deep exploration of the researcher’s
autoethnography is a nod to a dominant claim related tacit knowledge of the topic. On the other hand, the in-
to this emerging method. Ellis and Bochner (2000) cubation phase is a period of retreat from thought re-

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2) June 2006

http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/
 Mani METHODOLOGICAL DILEMMAS 5

lated to the question. The purpose of this phase is to cal genre here referred to as “autoethnography” has
focus on unrelated distractions that leave the research been further advanced by the postmodern challenge,
topic to percolate in the subconscious. During this reiterated by Ellis and Bochner, to infuse social science
time, new ideas form in much the same way as a forgot- with the emotions and person of the researcher. Unfor-
ten name suddenly comes to mind when we are think- tunately, however, these authors’ discussions of this
ing about something else. The phase of illumination method are, like Moustakas’s, very philosophical and
appears to be a mysterious phase in which something abstract, and somewhat lacking in concrete informa-
completely new is seen in something familiar. The way tion about the method and how someone new to it
in which the researcher causes illumination to occur is might proceed. In a lengthy book chapter (Ellis &
not clearly specified by Moustakas but appears to re- Bochner, 2000), information about the method is pre-
sult from genuine openness to unique possibilities. In sented, in part, in the form of a story about a particular
explication, the researcher develops a comprehensive graduate student interested in an autoethnographic dis-
depiction of the core themes. The major components of sertation. In this story, autoethnography is accom-
the phenomenon are explicated through the re- plished through the use of personal writing and
searcher’s self-awareness as well as through conversa- reflection, the stories of others (gathered through a se-
tions with others. In the final stage, creative synthesis ries of highly interactive and even therapeutic inter-
takes place, in which the researcher presents the mean- views with individuals and groups), personal poetry,
ings and themes associated with the question in the and an understanding of the relevant literature (espe-
form of a narrative (with verbatim material and exam- cially knowledge of the gaps in the literature that can
ples), poem, drawing, painting, or other creative form. be answered only through personally focused inquiry).
Although these phases, as described by Moustakas The use of autoethnography alongside other well-
(1990), strike me as quite idealistic and abstract, they known qualitative research methods is suggested.
do set the tone for a very nontraditional form of study Autoethnography is referred to as “action research for
that “engages one’s total self and evokes a personal and the individual” (p. 754), and it is suggested to the grad-
passionate involvement and active participation in the uate student in the story that she might do a “straight
[research] process” (p. 42). As Moustakas continued grounded theory analysis” (p. 757). Not unlike more
his discussion, he offered some more concrete details familiar approaches to qualitative research, common
regarding the techniques that can be used but acknowl- products of autoethnographic research can include
edged that “methods of heuristic inquiry are “short stories, poetry, fiction, novels, photographic es-
open-ended [with] each research process unfold[ing] says, personal essays, journals, fragmented and lay-
in its own way” (p. 43). He also noted that heuristic in- ered writing, and social science prose” (p. 739). In the
quiry methods should reveal the nature of a phenome- case of a dissertation, it appears that the form can be
non more completely than would ordinary experience, very fluid and evolving, and include personal stories
which suggests a process that is characterized by some and excerpts from interviews, possibly accompanied
degree of rigor and systematicity. Moustakas sug- by other more standard components of this type of re-
gested that heuristic researchers work with other re- search presentation. Ellis (2004), in a methodological
searchers and seek research participants, so that a novel about autoethnography, restated a number of the
personal topic can be illuminated by a variety of per- methodological points she put forward with Bochner
spectives. Likely sources of data include personal doc- (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). She acknowledged that
uments such as notes or journals, interview notes and “autoethnography does not proceed linearly” (p. 119),
transcripts, poems, and/or artwork. Data analysis con- is complex, is not conducted according to a special for-
sists of thorough discussion, introspection, and thought mula, and can be likened to being sent “into the woods
(immersion and incubation) until themes and meanings without a compass” (p. 120). However, she encour-
emerge. Ultimately, heuristic research is similar to aged autoethnographers to deal with the uncertainty of
more familiar forms of qualitative research, in that it the process so that adequate time is taken to “wander
focuses on experience and meaning and uses similar around a bit and [get] the lay of the land” (p. 120).
data sets and analysis techniques. However, it is in- Muncey (2005) added some concrete assistance to
tensely personal and introspective and, as Moustakas the question of “how to do” autoethnography. She sug-
describes it, almost obsessive in its depth and rigor. gested the use of snapshots, artifacts/documents, meta-
Second, autobiographical research methods have phor, and psychological and literal journeys as
become increasingly known as “autoethnography” and techniques for reflecting on and conveying a “patch-
have been promoted, influenced, and developed by work of feelings, experiences, emotions, and behaviors
Ellis and Bochner (1999, 2000). As with personal re- that portray a more complete view of . . . life” (p. 10).
search labeled “heuristic research,” the autobiographi- Overall, however, discussions of autoethnography

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2) June 2006

http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/
6 Wall AUTOETHNOGRAPHY

leave many questions regarding the method. What is and more of a philosophy, theoretical underpinning, or
presented, though, is an inspiring and compelling argu- paradigm, aimed at restoring and acknowledging the
ment for the methodological possibilities that exist presence of the researcher/author in research, the valid-
when the researcher is a full study participant. ity of personal knowing, and the social and scientific
A third widely discussed approach to the re- value of the pursuit of personal questions. This seems
searcher’s use of self is personal narrative. Personal to be of concern for many others who debate the the-
narrative is often presented as a typical product of ory/method divide. Nevertheless, my need to have
autoethnography but is also proposed as a method unto something concrete to learn was unsatisfied by my
itself. Noting that her perspective is contrary to con- general reading on autoethnography as a method. For-
vention in qualitative inquiry, Richardson (1994) pur- tunately, I managed to find several examples of
ported that writing is a autoethnography that provided excellent insights into
the use of self in research and the ways in which it
method of inquiry, a way of finding out about might be accomplished.
yourself and your topic. Although we usually
think about writing as a form of “telling” about UNDERSTANDING AUTOETHNOGRAPHY
the social world . . . writing is also a way of BY EXAMPLE
“knowing”—a method of discovery and analy-
sis. By writing in different ways, we discover As I have noted, there is considerable latitude with re-
new aspects of our topic and our relationship to spect to how autoethnography is conducted and what
it. Form and content are inseparable (p. 516, ital- product results. Autoethnographers tend to vary in
ics in original). their emphasis on auto- (self), -ethno- (the cultural
link), and -graphy (the application of a research pro-
Historically, writing has been divided into two genres: cess) (Ellis & Bochner, 2000, paraphrasing
literary and scientific. The goal of personal narrative as Reed-Danahay, 1997). This variable emphasis on the
research is to fuse the form with the content and the lit- separate dimensions of autoethnography results in the
erary with the scientific, to create a social scientific art production of manuscripts that differ significantly in
form, thereby revealing the hand of the researcher/au- tone, structure, and intent. It must also be noted that
thor who created the work and demonstrating explic- some authors who have pursued autobiographical in-
itly the expertise of the author rather than constructing quiry have not referred to their written products as
his or her absence (Ellis & Bochner, 2000; Richardson, autoethnographies. However, in keeping with the way
2000). Autoethnographically based personal narratives in which Ellis and Bochner subsumed other labels un-
are der autoethnography, the contemporary term of choice,
I will bring a number of articles into the discussion
highly personalized, revealing texts in which that, although their authors used various labels, can
authors tell stories about their own lived experi- also be thought of as autoethnographies. In other
ence, relating the personal to the cultural . . . In words, to adapt a well-known axiom, an auto-eth
telling the story, the writer calls upon . . . fic- nography by any other name is still an auto-eth
tion-writing techniques. Through these tech- nography. By considering these examples together, we
niques, the writing constructs a sequence of can gather helpful information on the practical aspects
events . . . holding back on interpretation, asking of using this type of inquiry.
the reader to emotionally “relive” the events Sparkes (1996) offered an excellent example of
with the writer. (Richardson, 2000, p. 11) autoethnography, as well as a very helpful expository
on the process of writing and publishing the resulting
What can be learned about method in autoethnography narrative (2000). (He described his original article as a
is that it varies widely, from the highly introspective, “narrative” but referred to it in his later analysis as an
through more familiar approaches connected to quali- “autoethnography.”) His work “The Fatal Flaw: A
tative research, to somewhat experimental literary Narrative of the Fragile Body-Self” (1996), nicely bal-
methods, experimental, at least, in terms of thinking of ances the auto-, -ethno-, and -graphy components of
writing as research. this method, as in it , he described his personal journey
During this learning process, I was disappointed to from elite athlete to a man who is forced to face an “in-
find that much of what was written on autoethnography terrupted body project” (p. 463) when inflammatory
(or otherwise labeled autobiographical research) was back disease became a permanent part of his life and
highly abstract and lacking in specificity. I came to interfered with his participation in sport and, indeed,
wonder whether autoethnography is less of a method many activities of his ordinary daily life.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2) June 2006

http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/
 Wall AUTOETHNOGRAPHY 7

Sparkes (1996) aligned himself philosophically ers, he deconstructed his reviewers’ feedback, ranging
with autoethnography and connected the personal with from the sympathetic to the skeptical, in an effort to in-
the cultural when he said, “I . . . attempt to take you as form future autoethnographers about the difficulties
the reader into the intimacies of my world. I hope to do associated with work of this type. He encouraged fu-
this in such a way that you are stimulated to reflect ture researchers to be persistent and resilient, to con-
upon your own life in relation to mine” (p. 467). As a tinue to “develop new avenues of criticism and support
professor, he described how the early stages of his for such work” (2003, p. 6), and to pursue publication
autoethnographic writing were shaped by his assump- in mainstream journals to enhance the profile of
tions about what constituted proper academic work and autoethnography.
how he “felt the need to add something to the story to An autoethnographic study by Duncan (2004) is an
signal it as scholarship” (2000, p. 28). His original excellent example of a methodologically rigorous
draft contained a personal story framed by solid sec- study that “could possibly be placed at the conservative
tions of theory to support the presentation of his experi- end of the continuum of autoethnographic reporting”
ence, but as he became more confident in the value of (p. 8). Duncan introduces the skeptic to this method in
sharing his story, he began to focus more on telling his a more gradual, comfortable way. Her research demon-
story and weaving theoretical content into it where strates explicitly how autoethnography can assist in an-
needed. The published version reads as an intelligent, swering otherwise unanswerable questions. As a
personal, emotional story that is, I feel, reassuringly multimedia/hypermedia designer (involving the de-
supported by previously held sociological knowledge. sign of computer assisted learning applications in
Sparkes bolstered his story by incorporating other data which users navigate the program content according to
sources, such as medical diagnostic test reports, recon- individual needs), she wanted to evaluate and improve
structions of conversations with others, selections from her practice. The novelty of this type of medium and
newspapers reporting on his athletic accomplishments, the delay in receiving feedback from end users necessi-
and excerpts from his personal diary. In his later analy- tated a personal, reflective approach for timely practice
sis (2000), he presented the comments of the various evaluation. To Duncan, autoethnography was a
reviewers of his submitted manuscript, revealing a method of inquiry in which the inner dialogue of the re-
wide range of reaction to this genre of research, from searcher was considered valid, that encouraged sys-
those rejecting it as scholarship to those calling for less tematic reflection, offered an organized and traceable
theory and more pure story. The report of his experi- means of data analysis and resulted in a scholarly ac-
ences as he endeavored to interject a personal narrative count (p. 3). Rigor in the research process (“-graphy”)
into traditional academia demonstrates the readiness of is emphasized by Duncan.
scholars to accept this method and offers future
autoethnographers some insights into successfully at- [T]his research tradition does more than just tell
tempting autoethnography. stories. It provides reports that are scholarly and
Holt (2001) published an autoethnography that is justifiable interpretations . . . [that] do not con-
similar in approach to Sparkes’s (1996), although it sist solely of the researcher’s opinions but are
deals with a very different topic. Holt told his story also supported by other data that can confirm or
about becoming a graduate teaching assistant in a uni- triangulate those opinions. Methods of collect-
versity and using a three-level reflection strategy to re- ing data include participant observation, reflec-
fine his teaching methods. He used his practical tive writing, interviewing, and gathering
background to generate questions and implications for documents and artifacts. (p. 5)
the future development of the graduate teaching assis-
tant role, thereby linking his personal experience to is- The main data source in this study was a reflective
sues in his social situation. He incorporated previous journal, kept over a 1-year period, consisting of hand-
research and existing models of teaching into his work written entries created twice weekly and averaging two
by contrasting his personal ideology and past experi- pages in length. Entries were numbered and indexed,
ence with the expectations of the new university setting and supported by other documents such as e-mails,
in which he took up a teaching assignment. He used a memos and letters, storyboard and graphic sketches,
2-year reflective logbook as the primary data course computer screen images, notes to self and from other
for his study. Like Sparkes (2000), Holt offered a very design team members, government documents, and
helpful and insightful article (2003) in which he told technical logs. Following data collection, Duncan be-
the story of his struggles to have his autoethnography gan the process of categorization and theming, and the
accepted and published. Presenting the story as hypo- construction of meaning that provided the basis for the-
thetical discussions between him and various review- ory development. In conclusion, she charged “those

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2) June 2006

http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/
8 Wall AUTOETHNOGRAPHY

engaged in this emerging art . . . to include in the re- As these examples attest, the range of auto-
search report adequate justification for the choice of ethnographic writings is vast and includes everything
this method and [a] demonstration of how appropriate from the conservative, methodologically rigorous
evaluation criteria might be applied” (p. 12). Despite study (Duncan, 2004), the personal but theore- tically
her conservative approach to the method, in contrast to supported (Sparkes, 1996, and, to a slightly lesser ex-
Sparkes (1996) and Holt (2001), Duncan raised similar tent, Holt, 2001, and Pelias, 2003), and the highly liter-
issues in the acceptability of autoethnography by the ary and evocative (Clarke, 1992; Paulette, 1993).
wider research community and suggested similar strat- These examples provoked quite different responses
egies for promoting understanding. from me that, as I came to learn, reflect precisely the
Spanning the theoretical and the literary, Pelias range of responses from the academic community at
(2003) shared some of his personal observations in large. Each prompts concerns in different ways, but all
“The Academic Tourist: An Autoethnography.” This is of them represent a genre that is still struggling for ac-
a short, humorous, but insightful offering that gives the ceptance.
reader a look into the daily habits and demands of aca-
demic life. It is characterized most obviously by long, CRITICISMS, DEFENSES,
run-on sentences that leave the reader feeling the mo- AND VALIDITY
notony and endlessness of the obligations of an aca-
demic career but, at the same time, reveal the expertise Judging by my reactions as I read these selected
and cultural familiarity of the author. The academic is autoethnographies, I was not surprised to learn that
metaphorically compared to a tour guide who knows there are still many who are not ready to give them-
his part, recites his lines, and fulfills the expectations selves over to this avant-garde method. Criticisms
on him. References to theory and other authors writing abound, and the debate rages. “The emergence of
about autoethnography are included as a half-hearted autoethnography and narratives of self . . . has not been
nod to tradition. trouble-free, and their status as proper research re-
On the other end of the continuum are a number of mains problematic” (Sparkes, 2000, p. 22). Expert
examples of personal narrative that rely almost exclu- knowledge is socially sanctioned in a way that
sively on a highly personal, evocative writing style, fo- commonsense or personal knowledge is not. As well,
cusing on the auto-, omitting any reference to research how knowledge is produced and who produces it are
conventions, and leaving the reader to make his or her important in how status is attributed to knowledge
own societal or cultural applications. An essay called (Muncey, 2005). Despite the influence of postmodern
“A Choice for K’aila” (Paulette, 1993) is a mother’s thought, the academic conventions are powerful, and
story about her decision not to permit her infant son, there is resistance to the intrusion of autobiographical
with terminal liver disease, to have a liver transplant. It approaches to knowledge production and sharing.
is the story of a parent who resolved a difficult di- Despite their wide-ranging characteristics, auto-
lemma (with her husband) about her child’s future, ethnographic writings all begin with the researcher’s
based on her faith and beliefs and an informed under- use of the subjective self. By using self as a source of
standing of the anticipated life course of a liver trans- data, perhaps the only source, autoethnography has
plant recipient. This narrative recounts a unique and been criticized for being self-indulgent, narcissistic,
rare experience and, in doing so, gives voice to a sel- introspective, and individualized (Atkinson, 1997;
dom-noticed perspective. Sparkes, 2000). The focus on biography rather than
Clarke (1992), inspired by her daughter’s formality is a concern for some, because personal ex-
award-winning essay about being asthmatic, shared periences are placed on a pedestal and separated from
her experience as the parent of an asthmatic child. She other discourses in their contexts. “The narratives
referred to her work as phenomenology, but given that seem to float in a social vacuum. The voices echo in an
it uses self as subject, it can be considered to be otherwise empty world. There is an extraordinary ab-
autoethnographic (Ellis, 2004). Clarke incorporated sence of social context, social action, and social inter-
the text of her daughter’s essay and wove in the poetry action” (Atkinson, 1997, p. 339). A focus on a single,
of others to illustrate her message. Her style is very po- subjective subject lacks genuinely thick description
etic, and the article is organized in short, dramatic sec- and threatens to substitute a psychotherapeutic for a so-
tions that recount specific instances, some very ciological view of life.
profound and evocative. Some theory is included, but Lack of systematicity and methodological rigor is
this piece is very much an artful communication of also noted as a barrier to the acceptance of autoethnog-
what it feels like to live with asthma. raphy. Sparkes (2000) and Holt (2003) both described

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2) June 2006

http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/
 Wall AUTOETHNOGRAPHY 9

reviewers of their manuscripts who wished to see ad- but took precautions by adhering closely to accepted
herence to traditional scientific tenets. Grounding in a research conventions.
theoretical framework, overtly described methodologi- Others, perhaps tending toward the more experi-
cal and data analysis procedures, an audit trail and mental forms of autoethnography than Duncan (2004)
replicability were cited as important in judging the did, have argued that traditional criteria for judging va-
value of their submissions, despite the obvious diffi- lidity cannot be and need not be applied to
culties in applying these to autoethnography. Even for autoethnographic writing.
those open to qualitative inquiry, traditional criteria
such as credibility, dependability, and trustworthiness The word criteria is a term that separates mod-
can be important, although not always easily applied to ernists from postmodernists . . . empiricists from
autoethnography (Holt, 2003). Duncan (2004), herself interpretivists . . . Both [sides] agree that inevita-
an autoethnographer (as discussed previously), has bly they make choices about what is good, what
noted that criticisms have been leveled at the “more ex- is useful, and what is not. The difference is that
perimental forms of autoethnography in which the one side believes that “objective” methods and
boundaries of scholarship are merged with artistic ex- procedures can be applied to determine the
pression as a way of challenging the limitations of what choices we make, whereas the other side be-
is normally accepted as knowledge in academic con- lieves these choices are ultimately and inextrica-
texts” (p. 11). She criticized evocative personal writing bly tied to our values and our subjectivities.
that relies on a direct emotional response from a reader (Bochner, 2000, p. 266)
rather than offering analysis, grounding in theory, and
methodological rigor. Because different epistemological and ontological as-
In response, those who support autobiographical in- sumptions inform autoethnographic inquiry, it makes
quiry have argued that autoethnography is more au- no sense to impose traditional criteria in judging the
thentic than traditional research approaches, precisely value of a personal text (Sparkes, 2000). It is suggested
because of the researcher’s use of self, the voice of the that rigorous methodology and generalizability are not
insider being more true than that of the outsider necessarily that which we should attain. “Think of the
(Reed-Danahay, 1997). “Autobiographies . . . and life life being expressed [in a narrative] not merely as data
stories are likely to present fuller pictures [thick de- to be analyzed and categorized but as a story to be re-
scription], ones in which the meanings of events and spected and engaged . . . we shouldn’t prematurely
relationships are more likely to be told than inferred” brush aside the particulars to get to the general”
(Laslett, 1999, p. 391, italics added). The sensibility of (Bochner, 2001, p. 132). Frank (2000) noted that those
the use of self in research was revealed by Ellis when who criticize the rigor of personal narrative are missing
she asked, “Who would make a better subject than a re- the point. “Maybe the point is not to engage [narrative]
searcher consumed by wanting to figure it all out?” systematically but to engage it personally” (p. 355). In
(1991, p. 30). Her frequent collaborator, Bochner judging narratives, then, we should “seek to meet liter-
(2001), objected to the assertion that a focus on self is ary criteria of coherence, verisimilitude, and interest”
decontextualized. Those who complain that personal (Richardson, 2000, p. 11). In other words, “Does this
narratives emphasis a single, speaking subject fail to account work for us? Do we find it to be believable and
realize that no individual voice speaks apart from a so- evocative on the basis of our own experiences?”
cietal framework of co-constructed meaning. There is a (Garratt & Hodkinson, cited in Sparkes, 2000, p. 29).
direct and inextricable link between the personal and This is, finally, where anyone who, like me, first en-
the cultural. Thus, rich meaning, culturally relevant counters autoethnography is faced with a choice. Hav-
personal experience, and an intense motivation to ing considered the epistemological and ontological
know are what typify and strengthen autoethnography. assumptions and the methodological approaches, fa-
Some proponents of autoethnography and personal miliarized myself with a number of examples of
narrative acknowledge methodological issues associ- autoethnography, and absorbed the arguments on both
ated with technique. “[T]hat we have to take precau- sides of the credibility/validity debate, I must now de-
tions in interpreting, generalizing, and eliminating bias cide whether I am inclined to reject, tolerate, accept,
here the same as we do with any data we collect is as- defend, or even embrace this challenging genre of re-
sumed” (Ellis, 1991, p. 30). As we have seen, Duncan search and writing.
(2004) represented a response to these issues in which I believe that I am forever called to be a moderate.
autoethnography is approached not for its poetic li- Postmodern ideology appeals to me because it exposes
cense but for its usefulness in explicating tacit knowl- the flaws in our traditional reliance on neutrality and
edge and improving practice. She used self as subject objectivity. It says that we cannot separate ourselves

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2) June 2006

http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/
10 Wall AUTOETHNOGRAPHY

from what we do. It breaks down dominant structures writing is much more conventional than evocative, she
that seek to exclude the contributions of others. I like conveyed legitimacy and usefulness in her use of a
that. Yet, I still believe that some things are right and method that is “a new way to twist the familiar” (Ellis,
some are wrong, that some things are real, and that 2000, p. 275).
truth can sometimes be known the same way by all Ironically, perhaps, the unstructured, more literary
people. personal narratives were also wonderful to experience
Methodology arises out of philosophy. I am solidly as a reader. Paulette’s story (1993) of letting her child
committed to qualitative research, itself a subjugated go was easy to connect with. I read the whole story, lin-
field of inquiry, because the aim of qualitative inquiry gering on points that called forth my experience,
is to connect with people on the level of human mean- thoughts, and beliefs, the sign of a reading that Ellis
ing. Although I value quantitative research and admire (2000) has claimed to be worthy because it has evoked
those who excel at it, I am not interested in disembod- something in me (p. 274). Paulette described what I
ied research that aims to speak neutrally for everyone. have often felt and what Illich (1976) so aptly stated,
However, I like structure, and I believe that rigor is that “the medical establishment has become a major
possible and necessary in qualitative research. Using threat to health” (p. 3). Paulette’s story is an important
self as subject is not a problem for me, but how self is one for people in a dominant culture to hear. She made
used is very important. a holistic health decision for her child, resting on her
Each of the examples I read, several of which have faith, her family, and the sufficiency of her knowledge
been discussed in this article, resonated with me and to come to a conclusion.
made a contribution to my personal body of knowl- Clarke’s (1992) phenomenological dialogue on
edge. Sparkes’s (1996) piece balanced academic tradi- asthma was a stretch for me. Although it was beauti-
tion with personal expression in a way that was very fully written, I found it hard to engage fully with her
comfortable for me. His judicious use of theory helped message. Perhaps I am a philistine, but I did not always
me to interpret his personal experiences and to apply understand the meaning of the poetry she included and
the concepts he presented to me. Clough (2000) sup- found the general presentation a little bit esoteric. Nev-
ported this theory-based approach, with which I am at ertheless, I have to admit that there were parts of it to
ease, by arguing that “staying close to theory allows which I could directly relate and from which I could
experimental writing to be a vehicle for thinking new take a new insight. Clarke managed to accomplish
sociological subjects, new parameters of the social” what Ellis (2000) strongly values: She painted vivid
(p. 290). Although, of course, I am a woman who has pictures, conveyed intense feeling, and demonstrated
never been an elite athlete, I am a recreational runner tremendous literary sensitivity. As well, Clarke’s the-
who has often felt disappointment that my body cannot matically organized presentation is a powerful ap-
do what I so wish it would. Sparkes’s story transferred proach to sharing memories that can be fragmentary
in many ways to my life. and elusive (Muncey, 2005).
As I am a doctoral student, Holt’s (2001) descrip- Finally, I just simply enjoyed Pelias’s (2003)
tion of adapting to a new university culture and learn- autoethnographic story. Having been in the world of
ing to teach undergraduate students resonated with my academia for only 2 years, I can already see how his de-
experience. His use of self as data source was framed scription of the life academic is accurate. His words
within an established framework of reflective practice, give me pause as I plan for my future, but his writing is
giving his story structure and equipping me as a reader lighthearted enough for me to see that, despite its short-
with a new tool to apply in my reflective practice. Ellis comings, people still choose an academic career and
(2000) suggested a number of questions that can be become comfortable in it. This story captured my
asked to judge the value of a story, including “Can the imagination, entertained me, and taught me something
author legitimately make these claims for his story? rich and new about the world of the author, a success
Did the author learn anything new about him- by Ellis’s (2000) standards.
self? . . . Will this story help others cope with or better I have lived long enough to have learned that when I
understand their worlds?” (p. 275). In reading Holt’s am thinking something, I know someone else is, too.
story (autoethnography), I was certain that the answers Other readers will have different reactions to these
to these questions were affirmative. (and other) examples of autoethnography, but overall, I
Duncan’s (2004) work allows a gentle step into the know that what attracts me to autoethnography and
world of autoethnography. I have to admit that the real- what concerns me about it are felt by others. My inner
ist inside of me was comforted by her rigorous method- process and reactions connect to the experiences of
ological approach, and I felt very confident that I could others in the world beyond me. My personal experi-
trust her findings and conclusions. Although Duncan’s ences link to the cultural.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2) June 2006

http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/
 Wall AUTOETHNOGRAPHY 11

In my opinion, all of these examples, as different as Bochner, A. P. (2001). Narrative’s virtues. Qualitative Inquiry,
7(2), 131-157.
they are, have something important to offer. They are Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1994). Personal experience
the sharing of new and unique knowledge that is useful methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
and applicable in a broader context. Still, there is one qualitative research (pp. 413-427). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
final rub for me. Are they research? Clarke, M. (1992). Memories of breathing: a phenomenological di-
As we seek the answer, “there’s a lot of room to do alogue: Asthma as a way of becoming. In J. Morse (Ed.), Qualita-
tive health research (pp. 123-140). Newbury Park: Sage.
interesting and innovative work on both sides of the di- Clough, P. T. (2000). Comments on setting criteria for experimen-
vide, and there doesn’t have to be this winner-take-all tal writing. Qualitative Inquiry, 6(2), 278-291.
mentality” (Bochner, 2001, p. 134). Knowledge does Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative
not have to result from research to be worthwhile, and data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
personal stories should have their place alongside re- Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Entering the field of quali-
search in contribution to what we know about the tative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Hand-
world in which we live. book of qualitative research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Certainly, I have taken some liberties in classifying Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice
several examples as autoethnography, even when the of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
authors do not. However, as I mentioned, this reflects Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1-28). Thousand
the confusing nomenclature that exists in relation to Oaks, CA: Sage.
what is increasingly referred to as autoethnography Douglass, B. G., & Moustakas, C. (1985). Heuristic inquiry: The
internal search to know. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
(Ellis & Bochner, 2000). Some authors, such as 25(3), 39-55.
Sparkes (1996, 2000) began a personal narrative not Duncan, M. (2004). Autoethnography: Critical appreciation of an
referring to it as an autoethnography. Others have sub- emerging art. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(4),
sumed a tremendous range of writing styles under the Article 3. Retrieved June 28, 2005, from
http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_4/pdf/duncan.pdf
heading “autoethnography” (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). Ellis, C. (1991). Sociological introspection and emotional experi-
If we intend to unify our labels with the term ence. Symbolic Interaction, 14(1), 23-50.
autoethnography, I think we have to decide what we Ellis, C. (2000). Creating criteria: An ethnographic short story.
will put into that category. I see autoethnography as a Qualitative Inquiry, 6(2), 273-277.
Ellis, C. (2004). The Ethnographic I. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
research method that is part of, but delineated from, the Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (1999). Bringing emotion and personal
broader realm of autobiography. By conceptualizing it narrative into medical social science. Health, 3(2), 229-237.
this way, we can use self in a methodologically rigor- Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal nar-
ous way, but personal stories can coexist with rative, reflexivity. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Hand-
book of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733-768). Thousand
autoethnographic research. Oaks, CA: Sage.
There does seem to be a distinction emerging, along Frank, A. W. (2000). The standpoint of storyteller. Qualitative
methodological lines, between the works that are spe- Health Research, 10(3), 354-365.
cifically referred to as autoethnographies (Duncan, Garfinkel, H. (1967). “Good” organizational reasons for “bad”
clinical records. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.), Studies in
2004; Holt, 2001; Pelias, 2003; Sparkes, 1996) and ethnomethodology (pp. 186-208). Inglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
those that might, according to some, fit into the cate- Hall.
gory but are not labeled thus (Clarke, 1992; Paulette, Gephart, R. P. (1988). Ethnostatistics: Qualitative foundations for
1993). Ultimately, using self as subject is a way of ac- quantitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hayano, D. M. (1979). Auto-ethnography: Paradigms, problems,
knowledging the self that was always there anyway and prospects. Human Organization, 38, 113-120.
and of exploring personal connections to our culture. Holt, N. L. (2001). Beyond technical reflection: Demonstrating the
We must be cautious, though, that we do not adopt new modification of teaching behaviors using three levels of reflec-
approaches in an uncritical fashion and that we make tion. Avante, 7(2), 66-76.
Holt, N. L. (2003). Representation, legitimation, and
principled, disciplined choices about how we will un- autoethnography: An autoethnographic writing story. Interna-
derstand and write about the social world (Coffey & tional Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(1), Article 2. Retrieved
Atkinson, 1996). We live in a time of great possibility; June 20, 2005, from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/
let us proceed wisely. 2_1/html/holt.html
Illich, I. (1976). Limits to medicine. Toronto, Canada: McClelland
and Stewart.
REFERENCES Knorr-Cetina, K. (1991). Epistemic cultures: Forms of reason in
science. History of Political Economy, 23(1), 105-122.
Atkinson, P. (1997). Narrative turn or blind alley? Qualitative Laslett, B. (1999). Personal narratives as sociology. Contemporary
Health Research, 7, 325-344. Sociology, 28(4), 391-401.
Bloor, M., Goldberg, D., & Emslie, J. (1991). Ethnostatistics and McCorkel, J. A., & Myers, K. (2003). What difference does differ-
the AIDS epidemic. British Journal of Sociology, 42(1), ence make: Position and privilege in the field. Qualitative Sociol-
131-138. ogy, 26(2), 199-231.
Bochner, A. P. (2000). Criteria against ourselves. Qualitative In- Moustakas, C. (1990). Heuristic research: Design, methodology,
quiry, 6(2), 266-272. and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2) June 2006

http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/
12 Wall AUTOETHNOGRAPHY

Muncey, T. (2005). Doing autoethnography. International Journal Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K.
of Qualitative Methods, 4(3), Article 5. Retrieved April 7, 2006, Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
from (pp. 516-529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/4_1/pdf/muncey.pdf Richardson, L. (2000). New writing practices in qualitative re-
Neuman, W. L. (1994). Social research methods: Qualitative and search. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 5-20.
quantitative approaches. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Ba- Sparkes, A. C. (1996). The fatal flaw: A narrative of the fragile
con. body-self. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(4), 463-494.
Paulette, L. (1993). A choice for K’aila. Humane Medicine, 9(1), Sparkes, A. C. (2000). Autoethnography and narratives of self: Re-
13-17. flections on criteria in action. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17,
Pelias, R. J. (2003). The academic tourist: An autoethnography. 21-43.
Qualitative Inquiry, 9(3), 369-373. Stivers, C. (1993). Reflections on the role of personal narrative in
Pillow, W. S. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking social science. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,
the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative re- 18(2), 408-425.
search. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175-196. Vidich, A. J., & Lyman, S. M. (2000). Qualitative methods: Their
Reed-Danahay, D. E. (1997). Auto/Ethnography: Rewriting the self history in sociology and anthropology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
and the social. Oxford, UK: Berg. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 37-84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2) June 2006

http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/