Reflecting the feminist approach, Stewart (1994:18) highlights the importance of the researcher including their own roles or positions, considering how they impact their understandings of a woman’s life: ‘a feminist strategy begins with a recognition that the knower or researcher is involved in the process of knowing’. Harding (1987) echoes this, suggesting that the best feminist analysis insists that the inquirer be considered along with the subject matter, resulting in a real individual with specific desires and interests rather than an invisible, anonymous voice of authority (1987:9).
The researcher is in a similar position to the respondents in that she is a mother doing a part-time PhD and it is therefore acknowledged that there may be a subjective influence in data collection as the research could be affected by the researcher’s assumptions or prejudices based on their own values and experiences, the ‘hazards of intimate familiarity’ (Hayano 1979:102). It is for this reason that the researcher felt it would beneficial to acknowledge her link with the subject, identifying her position in interpreting the women’s narratives through one of the emergent fields within accounts of lived experience, that of autoethnography. By including an autoethnographic element, she was providing her perspective and experiences as an individual account within the study becoming ‘both the researcher and the researched’ (Muncey 2010:3). This is a method of exploring ones’ own experiences and how they relate to the research through a personal narrative. Autoethnography is a genre of writing and research that displays multiple layers of consciousness, connecting the personal to the cultural (Ellis & Bochner 2000:733) and enables the researcher to investigate the social world from the perspective of the interacting individual (Denzin 1997: xv). The subsequent personal narratives produced through autoethnographic accounts are stories that help make sense of our lives (Candinin & Connelly 2000; Dashper 2015; Dillow 2009; Holman Jones et al. 2013; Walker & Taylor 2014). This supports the thinking of Denscombe (2010:87) who suggests there should be a ‘public account of the self’, an introspection as the researcher reflects on how their beliefs, experiences and values may shape their interpretation of the research. Denzin
98
& Lincoln (2000) stress the importance of the writer not remaining on the outside of the subject matter, objectivity being rejected and replaced by the writer’s life experience.
‘Revealing the self in the text can highlight the tensions and contradictions of dichotomies such as self/other, writer/reader, author/audience. Individual and collective experiences are connected and linked in meaningful ways rather than denied or forgotten.’ (Coffey 1999:133).
Literary critics have debated the meaning of the term autoethnography. Hayano considers the ‘insider’ perspective as key, ‘possessing the qualities of often permanent self- identification with a group and full internal membership, as recognised both by themselves and the people of whom they are part’ (1979:100). This echoes the thinking of Maanen (1985) who considers one approach to ethnographic writing to include the writer as ‘the native’. Reed-Danahay reinforce this with their view of autoethnography as ‘a form of self-narrative that places the self within a social context. It is both a method and a text’ (1997:9). This supports the work of Hayano (1979) who considered prior cultural knowledge of a group and the ability to be accepted as a member of that group to be essential. The researcher does acknowledge however that, as is the case when re-telling a story, there may be issues of memory not being a complete record of the past and as a result there may be methodological issues around ‘the truth of the account, how memory may have affected the narrative and the self-indulgence nature of including one’s own perspective’ (Muncey 2010:107). This question of authenticity is raised by Reed-Danahay (1997) when they question the authenticity of the voice in autoethnographic writing, who is speaking and on whose behalf? There is debate around whether the voice of the ‘insider’ is more credible or ‘true’ than the outsider but as Reed-Danahay argue, it is not as simple as one or the other, we all have a complex identity and the process of telling your story, whether through interviews or autoethnographic writing, involves a re-writing of the self. The lived experience of the self therefore is at the core of autoethnography, weaving story and theory together (Anderson 2006; Ellis 2004).
99
Autoethnography has been criticized for being self-indulgent and narcissistic (Coffey 1999), however an account that provides a transparent insight into the researcher’s experience may provide an added dimension to the understanding of the motivations for the study and for a clearer perspective on the analysis of the interviews. It has been argued that a woman’s motivations for autoethnographical writing are linked to a need for the reader to acknowledge their self-worth (Tedlock 2000). Yet in doing so, researchers who self-disclose are re-formulating the researcher’s role in a way that maximises engagement of the self but also increases the researcher’s vulnerability to criticism, both for what is revealed and for the very act of self-disclosure’ (Reinharz 1992:34). There must therefore be an acknowledgement that in writing such an honest account, the writer is also exposing themselves to the ‘vulnerability of revealing yourself’ to the judgement of others (Ellis & Bochner 2000:738). There are also ethical questions around the use of autoethnography as the inclusion of others in a personal narrative brings into question ethical perspectives surrounding anonymity. The researcher has not included names in the personal narrative and whilst it may be obvious to some who the individuals are, all people mentioned have given their consent to be included in the research. ‘There is risk others might pathologize us if we expose our vulnerabilities in writing and research’ (Etherington 2004:142).
Acknowledging one’s own experience of the subject is in keeping with the feminist approach to interviews: ‘one’s unique voicing, complete with colloquialisms, reverberations from multiple relationships and emotional expressiveness – is honoured. In this way the reader gains a sense of the writer as a full human being’ (Gergen & Gergen 2002:14). However, it is important that the researchers story is not the focal point of the study, it should be used to enhance the understanding of the topic overall (Ellis 2004). Taking this approach can enrich the case study, adding depth and providing a multi- layered text (Humphreys 2005) whilst offering insights that more traditional academic writing may not achieve (Mykhalovskiy 1996). It is based on this perspective that the researcher adopted an analytic autoethnographic approach, building on the evocative autoethnographical approach described above to take a broader approach to the ethnographic reflexivity (Anderson 2006).
100
Analytic autoethnography has five key features that distinguish it from the evocative ethnography.
1. The researcher is a complete member
This requires the researcher to ‘approximate the emotional stance of the people they are studying’ (Adler & Adler 1987:67). As a mother of two children studying for a doctorate part-time, the researcher reflects the other members of the group having similar experiences based on similar life situations. She is therefore identified as a complete member of the respondents involved in this study.
2. Analytic reflexivity
An awareness of the reciprocal influence between ethnographers and their informants is required. To adhere to this, the researcher demonstrated complete transparency with the respondents, identifying her own life situation, family dynamics, work and study experience and acknowledged the potential for subjectivity within the research.
3. Narrative visibility of the researcher’s self
The researcher should be a visible social actor within the written text, their experiences are considered vital data to demonstrate their personal engagement in the subject. The researcher has therefore included a written account of her own feelings and experiences of studying part-time whilst working and bringing up children.
4. Dialogue with informants beyond the self
Autoethnography is understood as a relational activity and should therefore reach beyond self-experience to incorporate dialogue with others. To reflect this, thirty- five women were interviewed about their experiences to provide a wider data set of understanding from which to draw meaning.
101 5. Commitment to theoretical analysis
The approach taken is not just used to stimulate emotional response in the reader but to gain insight into a broader set of social phenomena. The autoethnographical account is therefore only one aspect of this study which also incorporates data from a wide range of participants and theoretical perspectives.
(Anderson 2006: 378-388).
The researcher’s personal narrative was the starting point for this research. The aim was to write a reflexive autoethnography that highlighted the subject and culture of the research in the hope that in doing so, it provided invaluable insights for participants and readers (Cresswell 2007; Ellis & Flaherty 1992).
‘To a greater or lesser extent, researchers incorporate their personal experiences and standpoints in their research by starting with a story about themselves, exploring their personal connection to the project or by using personal knowledge to help them in the research process’ (Ellis 2000:741).