During the first SIP workshop we looked at different methods of enquiry. I had already begun to explore various research methods in order to make a decision on which one would be best suited to my project and I had decided that taking an autoethnographic approach would be the most appropriate way to go about it. According to the definition on Wikipedia, autoethnography is described in the following way:
“Autoethnography is a form of qualitative research in which an author uses self-reflection and writing to explore anecdotal and personal experience and connect this autobiographical story to wider cultural, political, and social meanings and understandings.[1][2] Autoethnography is a self-reflective form of writing used across various disciplines such as communication studies, performance studies, education, English literature, anthropology, social work, sociology, history, psychology, theology and religious studies, marketing, business and educational administration, arts education, nursing and physiotherapy.”
My project is largely based on my own personal experience of being a disabled person, so this method of research places myself in the position of participant as well as researcher, with my lived experience giving me the advantage of being able to relate to other participants and carry out my research in a much more personal and sensitive manner.
I have had the opportunity to read a number of articles based on Autoethnography which have helped me to further understand what it is and how using this method will enable me to carry out my research. I wanted to first understand the advantages and if there are any potential limitations to choosing this method for my project. I came across an article written by Mariza Mendez for the Columbian Applied Linguistics Journal where she analyzes and reviews some of the existing research and literature on autoethnography and it’s advantages, limitations and criticisms of this research method since it was first introduced in the 1980s. One of her observation is that:
“It seems that there are no formal regulations regarding the writing of an autoethnographic account since it is the meaning that is important, not the production of a highly academic text.”
Mendez, 2013
I always felt that my research project would be carried out in a creative format – I never really considered working in any other way. Personally, I tend to struggle a lot with reading great long essays and reports and unless the reading is directly targeted at something I can relate to, I find it very hard to keep focused. My research project focuses mainly on my own disability, my experience as a black disabled female and the thoughts of my peers and those who are close to me about what the visibility of individuals such as myself means in the context of the art world and in educational settings. I liked the idea of a more creative, personal research method for the very same reasons Mendez states below:
“…evocative autoethnography aims toward researchers’ introspection on a particular topic to allow readers to make a connection with the researchers’ feelings and experiences.”
Mendez, 2013
The subject itself has the potential to be quite emotive as it draws on personal experiences and the creation of a piece of artwork (sculpture) that embodies those thoughts, so it is important to understand the implications of allowing myself to be so vulnerable for the purposes of a research project. But with openness and vulnerability also comes several advantages to using this method. Firstly, I am the focus of the project and have complete access to all my own thoughts and experiences needed to draw from for my research, however Mendez states that this advantage can also create limitations:
“It is this advantage that also entails a limitation as by subscribing analysis to a personal narrative, the research is also limited in its conclusions.”
Mendez, 2013
In the case of my own project, I do not agree with this statement as I believe what I want to explore has the potential to produce many other research options and conclusions (such as exploring social & medical models of disability, the implications of labelling, taboos & stigmas surrounding disability in African & Caribbean cultures etc…) I do strongly believe that personal narratives are much more relatable and offer readers the opportunity to empathise and connect with both the researcher and the subject on a more personal level. Not only are they being presented with a topic they may not ordinarily have explored, it becomes more human and less disconnected.
There are, of course, ethical implications to take into consideration. Mendez poses the question as to whether or not we should ask consent from the people involved in an autoethnographic narrative and my response is absolutely! The fact that the research may be of a personal nature and involves other people means that a duty of care must be taken to ensure those involved (not just the researcher) are protected. Clarity about what will be required of participants and the intentions for the research must be made clear from the start. Taking a creative approach to research does not absolve the researcher from their ethical responsibilities to all involved.