What Makes the Autoethnographic Analysis Authentic?

David Weir, Daniel Clarke

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper engages with current issues raised, among others, by Delamont (Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007), relating to the merits of autoethnographic accounts. Delamont criticizes much current work in autoethnographic styles on a number of grounds as, for example, “intellectually lazy” and unrooted in general theoretical and structural frames. This paper uses an analysis and comparison of two separate productions using autoethnographic methods to develop, support, and to nuance these critiques and draws attention to relevant uses of the autoethnographic mode in both scholarly research and pedagogy.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationEthnographic Research and Analysis
Subtitle of host publicationAnxiety, Identity and Self
EditorsTom Vine, Jessica Clark, Sarah Richards, David Weir
Place of PublicationLondon
PublisherPalgrave Macmillan
Chapter8
Pages127-154
Number of pages28
Edition1st
ISBN (Electronic)9781137585554
ISBN (Print)9781137585547
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28 Nov 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'What Makes the Autoethnographic Analysis Authentic?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this