Autoethnography

Autoethnography is a clear of qualitative research in which an author uses self-reflection and writing to study anecdotal in addition to personal experience and connect this autobiographical story to wider cultural, political, and social meanings and understandings. Autoethnography is the self-reflective clear of writing used across various disciplines such(a) as communication studies, performance studies, education, English literature, anthropology, social work, sociology, history, psychology, theology and religious studies, marketing, organizational behavior, gender studies, human resource development, adult education, educational administration, arts education, nursing, paramedicine, and physiotherapy.

According to Maréchal 2010, "autoethnography is a form or method of research that involves self-observation and reflexive investigation in the context of ethnographic field work and writing" p. 43. A well-known autoethnographer, Carolyn Ellis 2004 defines it as "research, writing, story, and method that connect the autobiographical and personal to the cultural, social, and political" p. xix. However, it is not easy toa consensus on the term's definition. For instance, in the 1970s, autoethnography was more narrowly defined as "insider ethnography", referring to studies of the culture of a house of which the researcher is a bit Hayano, 1979. Nowadays, however, as Ellingson and Ellis 2008 unit out, "the meanings and a formal a formal message requesting something that is submitted to an guidance to be considered for a position or to be helps to do or have something. of autoethnography have evolved in a line that enable precise definition difficult" p. 449.

According to Adams, Jones, and Ellis in Autoethnography: understanding Qualitative Research, "Autoethnography is a research method that: Uses a researcher's personal experience to describe and critique cultural beliefs, practices, and experiences. Acknowledges and values a researcher's relationships with others.... Shows 'people in the process of figuring out what to do, how to live, and the meaning of their struggles'" Adams, 2015. "Social life is messy, uncertain, and emotional. if our desire to research social life, then we must embrace a research method that, to the best of its/our ability, acknowledges and accommodates mess and chaos, uncertainty and emotion" Adams, 2015.

Evaluation

The leading critique of autoethnography — and qualitative research in general — comes from the traditional social science methods that emphasize the objectivity of social research. In this critique, qualitative researchers are often called "journalists, or soft scientists," and their work, including autoethnography, is "termed unscientific, or only exploratory, or entirely personal and full of bias". numerous quantitative researchers regard the materials portrayed by narrative as "the means by which a narrating subject, autonomous and independent...canauthenticity...This represents an near total failure to usage narrative toserious social analysis".

According to Maréchal 2010, the early criticism of autobiographical methods in anthropology was about "their validity on grounds of being unrepresentative and lacking objectivity". She also points out that evocative and emotional genres of autoethnography have been criticized by mostly analytic proponents for their "lack of ethnogrphic relevance as a sum of being too personal." As she writes, they are criticized "for being biased, navel-gazing, self-absorbed, or emotionally incontinent, and for hijacking traditional ethnographic purposes and scholarly contribution".