Autoethnographic writing inside and outside the academy and ethics
Abstract
Published writers of fictional or semi-fictional works entering the academy as doctoral candidates express surprise at the requirements of formal human ethics reviews. Admitting an element of the autoethnographic exists in their writing, they may insist that they possess what Freeman called ‘narrative integrity’. This paper considers the ethics of autoethnography as they apply to both the academy, chiefly within the PhD by artefact and exegesis, and the world of published writers, seeking possible solace from such scholarly concepts as ‘relational ethics’, or ‘ethic of care’. Drawing methodologically on our experience as doctoral supervisor and student and with the permission of writer/students whose stories are inseparable from this work, this study unpacks in ethical terms the problems reported by students whose methodology involves evocative or performative autoethnography. As interpretatist methodologists, autoethnographers maintain it provides insights into the interplay between the personally engaged self and mediated cultural descriptions. Methodologically, it enacts the self and others as data. This connection between the personal and the social makes it difficult for autoethnographers to speak of themselves without speaking of others. Examining autoethnography involves a close scrutiny of the boundaries between the self and the other, a process that is both enlightening and essential for supervisory dyads in creative writing methodologically informed by autoethnography. These aspects of the ethics of autoethnography are crucial, but little attention has been paid to the problematic notion that practiceled research is emergent in practice and that its autoethnography requires a retrospective approach, looking backwards as well as forwards. The reality of applying this methodology in practice-led research clashes with the pro-active nature of ethics procedurals required by universities. The paper identifies nine praxical problems that arise from such clashes, and considers best-practice principles for responding to these problems, drawing strongly on indigenous research. Finally, it offers conclusions relating to consent, transparency and the need to open a dialogue around best practice in autoethnographic research in the academic field of Writing.
- Journal
- Writing and Pedagogy
- Published
- 2017-11-17
- DOI
- 10.1558/wap.27739
- CompPile
- Search in CompPile ↗
- Open Access
- Closed
- Topics
- Export
- BibTeX RIS
Citation Context
Cited by in this index (0)
No articles in this index cite this work.
Cites in this index (0)
No references match articles in this index.
Related Articles
-
Pedagogy Oct 2025modern rhetorical theory rhetorical criticism genre theory cultural rhetorics first-year composition writing pedagogy advanced composition creative writing writing across the curriculum graduate education two-year college service learning teacher development technical communication professional writing labor and working conditions archival research multimodality artificial intelligence literacy studies race and writing gender and writing disability studies literary studies editorial matter
-
Technical Communication Quarterly Oct 2024“I Feel Like I’m in a Box”: Contrasting Virtual Reality “Imaginaries” in the Context of Academic Innovation Labs ↗Brent Lucia; Matthew A. Vetter; David A. Solberg
-
Pedagogy Apr 2023rhetorical criticism first-year composition writing pedagogy creative writing graduate education two-year college service learning teacher development writing centers technical communication professional writing labor and working conditions digital rhetoric multimodality race and writing gender and writing literary studies editorial matter
-
Pedagogy Apr 2022Kristine Johnson
-
Pedagogy Jan 2022Hannah Franz; Anne Charity Hudley; Rachael Scarborough King; Kendra Calhoun; deandre miles-hercules; Jamaal Muwwakkil; Jeremy Edwards; Cecily A. Duffie; Danielle Knox; Bishop Lawton; John Henry Merritt