Santa Clara University Scholar Commons

Women's and Gender Studies College of Arts & Sciences

2008 Autoethnography as Constructionist Project Laura L. Ellingson Santa Clara University, [email protected]

Carolyn Ellis

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/gender Part of the Communication Commons, and the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons

Recommended Citation Ellingson, L. L., & Ellis, C. (2008). Autoethnography as constructionist project. In J. A. Holstein, & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 445-465). New York: Guilford.

Copyright © 2008 Guilford Press. Reprinted with permission of The uiG lford Press.

This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts & Sciences at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Women's and Gender Studies by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ~ THE GUILFORD PRESS New York London Autoethnography as Constructionist __ Project

Laura L. Ellingson Carolyn Ellis

everal years ago, we published an essay guished by virtue of what they are not." No­ in which we claimed that qualitative re­ where is this evidenced more strongly than Ssearch can be productively thought in the quantitative-qualitative divide. Even of as existing along a continuum. Ai-tistic in qualitative work itself polarities mark the interpretivists anchor one end, whereas sci­ differences between interpretivists and real­ entific positivists hold down the other. In be­ ists (Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont, Lofland, & tween is a vast and varied middle ground Lofland, 2001; Bochner & Ellis, 1999). Re­ wherein most qualitative researchers locate cently autoethnographers have begun to dis­ themselves (Ellis & Ellingson, 2000). We tinguish themselves from one another by constructed a nuanced range of possibilities separating evocative from analytic autoeth­ to describe what many others have socially nography. Analytic autoethnographers fo­ constructed as dichotomies (mutually exclu­ cus on developing theoretical explanations sive, paired opposites), such as art- science, of broader social phenomena, whereas evo­ hard-soft, and qualitative-quantitative (see cative autoethnographers focus on narrative Potter, 1995). Dichotomous thinking re­ presentations that open up conversations mains the default mode of the academy. and evoke emotional responses (Hunt & "Language, and thus meaning, depends on a Junco, 2006). system of differences," explains Gergen When Carolyn invited me (Laura) to coau­ (1994, p. 9). "These differences have been thor this chapter, I accepted with enthusi­ cast in terms of binaries... . All are distin- asm, excited to be working with her again.

445 446 11> STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES

Perusing the Handbook prospectus, I chuck­ covered in my many years of directing led at the irony of the two of us jointly con­ dissertations that the main roadblock for structing a story about the intersections students is that they try to do too much. between autoethnography and social con­ Then they encounter difficulty doing any structionism once again. Those familiar with one thing deeply or thoroughly enough. Carolyn's methodological novel on auto­ Laura was among the very best students I ethnography (Ellis, 2004) might recognize had ever mentored, and I wanted her to suc­ me as the witty, weak-bladdered woman in ceed. Laura persevered, and I guess I Carolyn's qualitative methods seminar. shouldn't have been surprised, given that Whereas Carolyn cheerfully explores my she was as astute at traditional analysis as she bodily weakness to add levity to her story, was talented as a narrative writer, that she her discussion of my dissertation only hints pulled off an excellent dissertation that in­ at the lengthy, intense saga of my negotia­ corporated multiple perspectives and meth­ tion with her and my committee over the ods. In light of our experience, I thought she role autoethnography would play in my would be the perfect coauthor for this chap­ ethnographic construction of an interdisci­ ter. plinary geriatric oncology team. Thankfully, In this chapter, we explore autoethnog­ the story had a happy ending; together we raphy as a social constructionist project. We resisted the art-science dichotomy and em­ want to resist the tendency to dichotomize braced crystallization, a postmodern form of and instead explore how autoethnography methodological tJ.iangulation that utilizes makes connections between seemingly polar multiple methods of analysis and multiple opposites. Though we see it as a sign of prog­ genres of representation (Richardson, ress that authors desire to tease out differ­ 2000). I combined narrative ethnography, ences in autoethnographic projects, we ar­ grounded theory analysis, autoethnography, gue that concentrating on dichotomies is and feminist analyses into a single disser­ counterproductive, given that autoethnog­ tation prqject, now revised into a book raphy by definition operates as a bridge, (Ellingson, 2005a). In this chapter, Carolyn connecting autobiography and ethnography and I continue that conversation, develop­ in order to study the intersection of self and ing our conception of autoethnography as a others, self and culture. constructionist project. After further detailing in this chapter the When I (Carolyn) asked Laura to coau­ limits of dichotomous thinking, we sketch thor this chapter with me, I hesitated at first the meanings and goals of autoethnography. as I thought about how insistent she had We then discuss social constructionist con­ been in her dissertation on including every­ cepts pertinent to autoethnography by de­ thing but "the kitchen sink." She wanted to constructing various methodological dichot­ engage in crystallization and approach the omies. oncology team she studied from a variety of perspectives. Her goal was to illuminate the socially constructed world of the team while The Limits simultaneously revealing the constructed na­ of Dichotomous Thinking ture of her multiple accounts of the team. Yes, perhaps I would have preferred at the I (Laura) often feel! am channeling Carolyn time that Laura do it "my" way. Don't we all when I introduce the continuum of qualita­ want to reproduce ourselves? But I also tive methods to my undergraduate qualita­ pride myself on helping students to find tive students, so tied to our personal rela­ their particular and unique voices, especially tionship is my knowledge of and passion for if they are different from mine. I was leery of qualitative methods. I recall with fondness Laura's proposed project because I've dis- Carolyn's chart of qualitative research with Autoethnography @ 447

the squiggly, broken line down the middle mal channels, such as academic journals, between the art and science sides. "Qualita­ and through informal, interpersonal tive as art and qualitative as science," she interaction with others [Gergen, 1994]. giys adamantly, "are endpoints of a contin­ Unfortunately, we are so schooled in lium. You have to decide where you want to some ways of thinking that we no longer ibcate yourselves in terms of your identity notice how limiting those mental patterns ind in every research project you do. That can be. There ai·e three ways in which di­ location will determine your goals, the pro­ chotomies limit our thinking. You'll want tedures you use, and the claims you make" to take notes on this and ask me questions (Ellis, 2004, pp. 25-31, 359-363). if you don't understand, since this isn't in \ I address the limits of dichotomous think­ the reading, and it will be on the exam." irig early in my qualitative methods course, tight after introducing social construction­ This last comment brings them to rapt at- ism as the epistemology that underlies the tention, and they poise their pens above iliethodological continuum. "The central their notebooks as I explain. ~remise of social constructionism," I tell stu­ dents, "is that meaning is not inherent. The "First, dichotomies present as opposites i::entral concerns of constructionist inquiry what are actually interdependent. Socially ire to study what people 'know' and how constructed opposites actually depend they create, apply, contest, and act upon upon each other for existence; without these ideas" (Harris, 2006, p. 225). women there would be no men, only peo­ Ci My undergraduate students sit with their ple; without hard, there would be no soft, ~esks arranged in a circle, faces not yet only a single texture. drooping with late-term fatigue but more "Second, dichotomies limit the possibil­ than a few evidencing the mild resentment ities to two and only two, negating t11e $om of taking required courses. I discuss near-infinite possibilities present between fhe politics of the field of qualitative re­ any two poles. Thus we can resist the limi­ iearch and how hotly contested many issues tations of femininity and masculinity as ~-e within the field, referencing their read­ mutually exclusive opposites and imagine frig ofJames Potter (1995). My students look them instead as poles between which at me with naked disbelief when I add with a there are many degrees of androgyny, ~iriile, "And some of us actually care so blended identities, and possible perfor­ (li:eply and passionately about this stuff that mances of sex, gender, and sexuality. W,e have ongoing debates and dialogues and "Finally, when we limit possibilities to fven get mad at each other sometimes!" The only two, one will inevitably be valued ftudents shake their heads, mystified as to over the other. It is not possible to view li_ow anyone could care so much about such the world in terms of equal opposites; one ~h:opic. side is always already privileged." 'fhThen I tell them that making sense of the World through dichotomous thinking is un­ As I finish the $tatement I notice I am lean­ ptoductive. "Dichotomies are pervasive in ing forward, gesturing enthusiastically, my M[estern thinking," I add, warming to my voice effortlessly projecting throughout the J9pic, my excitement growing. The circle of room. One of my students, a lovely young }fudents remains quite unexcited, but I con­ woman who works in my department office, tinue. looks up at my impassioned soliloquy and gives me an amused smile. '''Knowledge is not 'out there' waitmg to As my students dutifully scribble away, I be found. Instead, we socially construct think back to my own courses in ,qualitative knowledge in relationships, through for- methods with Carolyn, narrative inquiry and 448 @ STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES social constructionism courses with Art we believe, is an approach particularly adept Bochner, and feminist theory and methods at challenging fundamental dichotomies, courses in women's studies, all of which chal­ not only those in society in general but also lenged me to think beyond, through, and those that structure traditional approaches around accepted (dichotomous) norms for to research, such as: research and knowledge construction in aca­ deme. The fundamental axiom that culture ~ Self-other and meaning are socially constructed under­ o Subject- object girded my graduate coursework, opening up ., Humanities-social science for me bountiful possibilities for challenging the taken-for-grantedness of everyday life. I e Process-product try to offer my students the same. • Personal-political I recall that Carolyn constructed qualita­ o Emotional- rational tive methods not only as a continuum but as a passionate pursuit. "I love method, as you C!) Passionately involved- neutral know," she reaffirmed in a recent e-mail. "I C!) Evocative-analytic like to figure out the process of how to know. I am passionate about making methods We view autoethnography as a social con­ dovetail with life as lived, rather than with structionist approach that enables critical rigid procedures." I couldn't have agreed reflection on taken-for-granted aspects of so­ more, and her enthusiasm reinfected me im­ ciety, groups, relationships, and the self. mediately. Though I don't have as much suc­ Autoethnography becomes a space in which cess teaching undergraduates to love quali­ an individual's passion can bridge individual tative methods in a 10-week quarter as and collective experience to enable richness Carolyn does teaching committed graduate of representation, complexity of under­ students in her interpretive studies pro­ standing, and inspiration for activism. gram, many of my students report that they find it at least palatable. I try to be content with that. Defining Autoethnography Both of us teach the entire continuum but locate ourselves between the middle and ar­ Autoethnography is research, writing, story, tistic ends. Carolyn more comfortably inhab­ and method that connect the autobiographi­ its the near regions of the artistic pole than cal and personal to the cultural, social, and Laura does, and Laura indulges more often political (Ellis, 2004, p. xix). It is the study of in systematic, middle-ground analyses than a culture of which one is a part, integrated Carolyn does (e.g., Ellingson, 2002, in press­ with one's relational and inward experi­ b; Ellis, 1995, 2002c). But Carolyn has done ences. The author incorporates the "I'' into grounded analysis in the past (Ellis, 1986) research and writing, yet analyzes self as if and sometimes now grounds her narratives studying an "other" (Ellis, 2004; Goodall, in theory and other voices (Ellis, 1998, 2000, 2000). Autoethnography displays multiple 2002b ), and Laura writes artistic narra­ layers of consciousness, connecting the tives and often includes long portions of personal to the cultural. Autoethnographic narrative in her grounded analysis pieces texts appear in a valiety of forms-short sto­ (Ellingson, 2003, 2005a). iies, poetry, fiction, novels, photographices­ Both of us write from a social construc­ says, personal essays, journals, fragmented tionist perspective, which provides the epis­ and layered writing, and social science temological 1..mderpinniJ.1gs for autoethnog­ prose. In these texts, the workings of the self raphy and other boundary-spanning are expressed emotionally, physically, and qualitative methods we embrace (Gubrium cognitively. These texts feature concrete & Holstein, 1997). Social constructionism, action, emotion, embodiment, spirituality, Autoethnography o 449 and introspection, which appear as relation­ (graphy), culture (ethnos), and self (auto) al and institutional stories influenced by his­ (Reed-Dana.hay, 1997, p. 2). Different exem­ tory, social structure, and culture, which plars of autoethnography fall at different themselves are revealed dialectically places along the continuum of each of these through action, feeling, thought, and lan­ three axes. For example, Laurel Richardson guage. Autoethnography portrays meaning sees herself as a writer and focuses on through dialogue, scenes, characterization, graphy, often writing about writing (Richard­ and plot, claiming the conventions of lit­ son, 2000; Richardson & Lockridge, 2004). erary writing (Ellis, 2004, p. xix; Ellis & Carolyn often focuses on the self, and Laura Bochner, 2000). often focuses on culture. In all these cases, Similar to many terms used by social scien­ however, the authors include all three di­ tists, the meanings and applications of auto­ mensions in their works, and how much of ethnography have evolved in a manner that each is included differs in the various pro­ makes precise definition difficult. We in­ jects they do. clude under the broad rubric of autoeth­ Although some types of autoethno­ nography those studies that have been re­ graphic writing focus on the voice and point ferred to by other similarly situated terms, of view of the primary author (Jago, 2006; such as: personal narratives (Personal Narra­ Kiesinger, 2002; Secklin, 2001; Spry, 1997), tives Group, 1989), narratives of the self(Rich­ the genre also includes multivoiced narra­ ardson, 1994), personal experience narratives tives in which authors weave their stories (Denzin, 1989), personal essays (Krieger, with those of other participants (Boylorn, 1991), ethnographic short stories (Ellis, 1995), 2006; Drew, 2001; Ellingson, 2005a; Holman writing stories (Richardson, 1997), self­ Jones, 1998) and coauthors (Ellis, Kiesinger, ethnography (Van Maanen, 1995), emotional­ & Tillmann-Healy, 1997). Coconstructed ism (Gub1ium & Holstein, 1997), radical em­ narratives, interactive interviews, and inter­ piricism (Jackson, 1989), and many others active focus groups are variations of this in­ (see Ellis & Bochner, 2000, pp. 739-740). teractive approach (Davis & Ellis, in press; Autoethnography is a blurred genre. Ellis & Bochner, 2000; Ellis et al., 1997). Whether we call a work an autoethnography These techniques allow autoethnographers or an ethnography depends as much on the to more fully understand the lived experi­ claims made by authors as anything else ences and relationship practices that occur (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). We desire to be in­ in interaction with others and in groups and clusive rather than exclusive, to focus on systems, as well as the multiple interpreta­ (commonalities among terms and projects tions, experiences, and voices that emerge in rather than differences. Autoethnography lives and stories. as a genre frees us to move beyond tra­ ditional methods of writing (Gergen & :Gergen, 2002), promoting narrative and po­ Autoethnography as a Social :etic forms, displays of artifacts, photo­ Constructionist Project graphs, drawings, and live performances ((Ellis, 2004). The predominant form consists The practice of autoethnography presumes F6f short stories written by researchers who that reality is socially constructed and that systematically introspect and record their meaning is constructed through symbolic '. experience with the intent of evoking emo­ (language) interaction (Berger & Luck­ \tional response from readers. Thus auto­ mann, 1966). Presuming that reality is so­ '§ thnographers connect the imaginative style cially constructed enables autoethnogra­ ~f literature with the rigor of social science phers to counter accepted claims about "the .ethnography. way things are" or "the way things always .... Autoethnographers vary in their empha­ have been." As described earlier, autoeth­ fsis on the writing and research process nography is a broad and wonderfully ambig- 450 o STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES uous category that encompasses a wide array passionate, control the conditions, convert of practices. As authors, we remain ever cog­ observations to numerals, search for the an­ nizant of how we participate in the social swer, and separate truth from practice-are construction of the field of autoethnog­ rhetorically constructed to privilege the raphy by participating in this discourse that powerful elite and marginalize other voices is both autoethnographic and about auto­ (Gergen, 1999, pp. 91- 93). Although not ethnography. suggesting that such research is without On the one hand, we have much in com­ value, Gergen counters its claims to a privi­ mon: Laura seeks multigenre crystallization leged status in the process of knowledge pro­ in her work (Ellingson, 2005a), and Carolyn duction. advocates that "analysis and story also can Autoethnography developed in large part work together" (Ellis, 1993; Ellis & Bochner, as a response to the alienating effects on 2006, p. 444). Laura learned about auto­ both researchers and audiences of imper­ ethnography from Carolyn, who mentored sonal, passionless, abstract claims of truth her throughout her PhD program and be­ generated by such research practices and yond, thus significantly influencing Laura's clothed in exclusionary scientific discourse understanding of herself as an ethnogra­ (Ellis, 2004). It attempts to disrupt and pher and autoethnographer. On the other breach taken-for-granted norms of scientific hand, our goals as researchers and authors discourse by emphasizing lived experience, often diverge. Carolyn publishes primarily intimate details, subjectivity, and personal personal autoethnographic narratives (e .g., perspectives. Thus autoethnography as a: Ellis, 1995), coconstructed nan-atives (e.g., method participates in the ongoing social Ellis & Bochner, 1992), and methodological construction of research norms and prac­ commentaries for those who appreciate and tices at the same time that it seeks to in.flu-. work at the intersection of social sciences ence the social construction of specific phe~ and humanities (e.g., Ellis et al ., 1997), thus nomena (e.g ., child abuse; Hacking, 1999). troubling the distinction between humani­ ties and social sciences. Laura offers system­ atic qualitative analyses to more conven­ Troubling Dichotomies tional social science audiences in health and Socially Constructing communication and family communication Alternative Research Modes (Ellingson, 2002, 2003, in press-a; Ellingson & Sotirin, 2006), alongside her narrative and We now turn to a discussion of dichotomies autoethnographic writing (Ellingson, 1998; that pervade research and explore how 2005b ), gleefully troubling the distinctions autoethnography troubles these divisions; within genres of social science (Ellingson, often providing alternative modes of experi­ 2005a). encing the process of research. We invite Socially constructed categories such as readers to think through and beyond po­ autoethnography do not exist in a vacuum. larities such as researcher-researched, o~ectivity~ Social institutions, laws and regulations, me­ subjectivity, process- product, self- others, dia, advocates representing various posi­ art-science, and personal- political. tions, and more make up the matrix in which ideas are created, maintained, and Researcher-Researched changed over time (Hacking, 1999). In no context is this more apparent than in uni­ The researcher-researched dichotomy is un­ versities and research institutions. Social done, or at least unraveled, by autoeth­ constructionists posit that the conventional nographies in which the author becomes a standards of scientific inquiry developed participant and the author's experiences, during the Enlightenment- to remain dis- emotions, and meanings become data for Autoethnography a 451 exploration. To a greater or lesser extent, re­ sions of sorrow, exchange light talk, smile, searchers incorporate their personal experi­ sometimes even laugh. "It is God's will. " "God ences and standpoints in their research by will look after him," they say to make us and starting with a story about themselves, ex­ themselves feel better. I nod. The same sen­ plaining their personal connection to the tences are uttered over and over. It doesn't matter. There are no points for originality. project, or by using personal knowledge to (Ellis, 1993, pp. 720-721) help them in the research process ( e.g., Holman Jones, 1998; Linden, 1992). Femi­ nism contributed significantly to legitimiz­ Using my own experiences, reflections ing the autobiographical voice associated and memories, I reconstructed myself and with reflexive ethnography (e.g., Behar, people emotionally close to me and to the 1996; Personal Narratives Group, 1989; tragic event I describe as a story told within Richardson, 1997). the context of my ongoing relationships Qualitative methodologists refer to the with family and friends. By looking inward process of researching the self as introspec­ for data, I, the researcher, became both the tion (Ellis, 1991b). Introspection involves subject and obj ect of research. the researcher in generating diaries, jour­ I (Laura) also turned an analytic lens on nals, freewriting, field notes, and narratives myself, but as part of a larger ethnographic of his or her lived experiences, thoughts, project. I engaged in sensemaking about my­ and feelings, and then using these as data. self and my participants in my fieldwork in "Resurrecting introspection (conscious an interdisciplinary geriatric oncology pro­ awareness of awareness or self-examination) gram at a regional cancer center {Ellingson, as a systematical sociological technique will 1998). I wrote a layered piece that was essen­ allow social constructionists to examine tially an account of how I constructed an un­ emotion as a product of the individual pro­ derstanding of my relationship to the pa­ cessing of meaning as well as socially shared tients, their loved ones, and the staff, to cognitions" (Ellis, 1991b, p. 23). I (Carolyn) whom I was a researcher and cancer survi­ used this technique to construct the experi­ vor. Unlike Carolyn, I constructed accounts ence of grief for my family, my neighbors, of patients I met only briefly and staff I knew and myself in my story of my brother's sud­ but who were not part of my intimate circle. den death: In order to explore connections among my own previous experiences as a cancer pa­ tient and my understanding of the people in Even with the planning, we did not anticipate the effect seeing the flag-draped casket would the clinic in which I was conducting an eth­ have on my mother on Sunday night when our nography, I both wrote narratives based on family went to the funeral home to receive memories and reconstructed events based friends. Silently, we walk through the bitter on accounts in my personal journals written cold weather and into the funeral home. When at the time of my diagnosis and treatment my mother sees the casket, she screams, "My for bone cancer: that is, "the process baby. Oh my baby is dead." She collapses to the of opening inward [al lowed) me to reach floor, while the rest of us stand rooted to our outward toward understanding" others spots. It is like a play rehearsal, and my mother (Berger, 2001, p. 515). has messed up her lines. In slow motion, we fi­ The following excerpt tells of spending nally help her up and support her still sobbing Christmas in the hospital in Vermont while to a chair. My once-powerful and imposing fa­ ther looks helplessly on, confused, as someone suffering from septicemia, a serious illness approaches to remove his coat. brought on by infection and the compromis­ Several hundred people have come to pay ing of my immune system due to chemother­ respects. [My brother] Art and I shake hands apy. After going out for lunch with my or hug each one, thank them for their expres- brother and father, I cry in my hospital bed: 452 @ STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES

Dad and Mark leave early to beat the storm person or group to assert their particular home, and, with a lump in my throat, I watch perspective over that of other persons or them go. They take my presents with them, groups. Because power and knowledge intri­ since I have no use for them in the hospital. cately intertwine, the authority to judge and How can the-y leave? Why didn't Mom come? When label some knowledge as objective-and thus will this end? I think bitterly to myself that they valuable-ensures that the powerful remain all care, but then they get to go home. It is not their bodies pierced with needles. Too weak to so, as knowledge disputing the status quo make it to the toilet on crutches, having to use power relations is always already delegit­ a bedpan. Schedule determined by blood imated (see Foucault, 1975). counts and temperature. Leg aching, stomach Autoethnography interferes with this di­ queasy, buttocks numb from sitting in the bed chotomy by drawing blurry lines between day after day. Alone I lay flat on my back and detached, external knowledge and personal, stare at the ceiling all evening. My constant, si­ internal knowledge. Much of the rhetorical lent tears creep slowly from the outer corners force of this dichotomy lies in the invocation of my eyes and drip into my ears. (Ellingson, of objective accounts as rational and of sub­ 1998, p. 506) jective ones as emotional. In actual practice, however, reading emotions of self and other The inspiration for this story was a line in my often forms a necessary precursor for ratio­ journal, written at the lowest point of my nal action (Ellis, 1991a). Autoethnographers spirits during treatment, in which I had writ­ weave their own emotions into their re­ ten, "I discovered that when I cry while lay­ search accounts and "plunge directly into ing flat on my back, my tears drip into my the subjective fray, at times becoming pas­ ears." I analyzed my own experiences and sionately engrossed" (Gubrium & Holstein, joined them with my analysis of field notes 1997, p. 59). of my participants. Through autoethnog­ For example, I (Laura) not only admit but raphy, I demonstrated that the taken-for­ celebrate my subjectivity. I wrote in an ac­ granted demarcation between staff and count of the geriatric oncology clinic: patient is slippery, for all bodies bespeak vul­ nerability. While many confessional tales have as their goal the reassurance of the reader that their findings are "uncontaminated" and hence "sci­ Objectivity-Subjectivity entific" and "valid" (Van Maanen, 1988), I have as my goal the opposite: to reassure the reader Being labeled subjective or biased, as it is often that my findings are thoroughly contaminated. called, commits the worst of the deadly sins This contamination with my own lived experi­ within the positivists' worldview. Scientists ence results in a rich, complex understanding socially constructed the rules of science of the staff and patients of the clinic in which I centuries ago, and these rules remain en­ am observing (and of my own cancer experi­ trenched in academic discourse and in ence) . . .. For the first time, I now enter the on­ Western societies in general. Supporters cology context with no immediate implications for my own health or that of a loved one. Yet, I construct and present objectivity and subjec­ do not study the patients and staff of the clinic tivity as a dichotomy with clear points of de­ with detachment; my own experiences as a pa­ marcation, and they prize objectivity and dis­ tient filter what I see, hear, and feel. (Ellingson, miss or even ridicule subjectivity. From a 1998, p. 494) social constructionist perspective, objectiv­ ity is not fundamental or inherent in science In reclaiming contamination, I move be­ but "is primarily a linguistic achievement yond confessing my subjectivity to reveling that draws on the machine metaphor of hu­ in the possibilities of subjectivity for under­ man functioning" (Gergen, 1994, p. 165). standing a complex topic. Claiming objectivity does not make it so but I (Carolyn) also eschew the objectivity­ rather signifies the power and authority of a subjectivity dichotomy. In addition to advo- Autoethnography ¢) 453 eating for the impossibility of detachment in 2004). Revealing and interrogating the research (Ellis, 2004), I demonstrate the im­ processes of research is critical to autoeth­ portance of subjective understanding by al­ nography and counters the historical im­ lowing some narratives to stand on their perative to obscure the details of the con­ own without any analysis, explanation, or struction of research findings using contextualization within a field of research. sanitizing strategies such as passive voice For example, in a narrative about my ( e.g., the data were collected; it was found that) mother's hospitalization, I tell of lovingly (Gergen, 1994; Richardson, 2000). In the caring for her: field, during solitary introspection, and/ or while participating in interactive reflection Taking care of her feels natural, as though she with others, autoethnographers engage in is my child. The love and concern flowing be­ embodied action, not just report on distant tween us feels like my mom and I are falling in processes (Ellingson, 2006). Often this takes love. The emotionality continues during the the form of revealing the researcher's com­ four days and nights I stay with her in the hos­ plex role in a study of a specific context and pital. My life is devoted temporarily to her well­ of acknowledging the messiness and mis­ being. She knows it and is grateful. I am grate­ ful for the experience. I do not mind that she is takes that inevitably imbue the process of dependent on me. I am engrossed by our feel­ conducting such research. ing, by the seemingly mundane but, for the Ethnographers-Laura included- tend to moment, only questions that matter. Are you want to publish the most credible and per­ dizzy? In pain? Comfortable? Do you want to suasive version of our stories when we seek be pulled up in bed? (Ellis, 1996, p. 242) to influence policy, practice, and/ or theory (Ellingson, in press-a). Hence we often sani­ This embodied tale provides concrete de- tize our accounts, omitting missteps as irrel­ tails of caring for an elderly parent. I do not evant, tangential, or overly personal; histor­ attempt to establish distance from the expe­ ically, such confessional tales were kept rience. My sensemaking is visceral and in the separate from authoritative accounts of re­ moment. I tell the tale as I understand it so search (Tedlock, 1991; Van Maanen, 1988). that others can experience the particularity Granted, we take a risk when we combine of my experience through my story. My confessions of embarrassing moments with choice to publish an openly personal (read: passionate calls for social, political, and pro­ subjective) story without the scaffolding of fessional change based on our findings; detachment that frames most qualitative many will dismiss out of hand work that ad­ work, including much autoethnography­ mits to a messy process (see Ellingson, theories, reviews of literature, methodologi­ 2005a, in press-a). However, when we pre­ cal details-radically refuses to reify the tend that research progresses smoothly, we opposition of objectivity and subjectivity. In provide inaccurate and deceptively simplis­ so doing, I celebrate the individual's view as tic maps for those who read our work. In ad­ sufficient for making meaning, and I partici­ dition to field work, the writing of accounts pate in troubling the taken-for-grantedness of our work also reflects an embodied, of the objectivity-subjectivity dichotomy in messy process that is inextricably bound to research. the final products of our research. For example, here I (Laura) give a glimpse Process- Product of the story of writing my ethnography of the geriatric oncology clinic: Autoethnography encompasses both process-what one does-and product- what I have had it with my body. I am sick to death of one gets after it is done. Autoethnography laying around my little house recoveiing from reflexively celebrates and often explicitly in­ my knee replacement surgery and trying to tegrates processes into the product (Ellis, write with my laptop balanced precariously on 454 11 STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES

my uneven lap ... to write so personally about she can in spite of it. Certainly, I don't want her my understanding of the clinic seems impossi­ to feel like she has to play down the pain or ble from the primarily prone, pain-filled posi­ pretend to think she will g·et better just to make tion I grudgingly inhabit these days. Somehow, me feel good. Or do I? Do I want a relationship I can engage in systematic and detached writ­ based upon reality and truth? Could I stand it? ing, but the combination of my physical pain ... I know there will come a time when she and and the psychic wounds that accompany it are I will have this conversation. But not yet. (Ellis, so fresh, so immediate, that attempting to dig 2001, p. 604) into my body memories for insights is like rub­ bing salt into open wounds. Unwelcome mem­ The account of modifying my story as I ories of the repeated violations of my body . . . read it to my mother displays the usually hid­ surface every time a wave of nausea hits or the pain spikes. I have no energy for embodiment den processes of adapting to one's audience right now. (Ellingson, 2005a, pp. 77- 78) and considering the effects of one's words upon those who are characters in my stories. Of course, my example also illustrates a pro­ Moving beyond merely using active voice found resistance to the socially constructed and owning one's own involvement in mind-body dichotomy that deeply influ­ research processes, I resist the process­ ences Western cultures. Social construction­ product dichotomy by highlighting the pro­ ists do not deny that material bodies exist cesses that led to the product, thus apart from discourse but argue that their destabilizing the product as a fixed interpre­ meanings are inseparable: "bodies are not tation of an event and opening up possibili­ only constrained or damaged but also consti­ ties for multiple understandings. I try to tuted by discursive relations, social prac­ show how research findings, as well as hope tices, and historical processes" (Ziarek, and truth, are socially constructed in rela­ 2005, p. 88). My body always forms part of tionships, and how negotiation might the process of research, and openly discuss­ change as the research and illness progress. I ing how that happens troubles the process­ also show what I learned about the product product divide. from focusing on the process of research. In more personal-focused autoethnog­ raphy, the process of constructing the tale Self- Others may be alluded to or included explicitly. I (Carolyn) tell the story of sharing with my In social constructionist theory, the self ex­ mother a narrative I had written about our ists only in relation to others. The self is not relationship (Ellis, 2001). The story chroni­ a discrete, individual, fixed entity as pro­ cles my mother's verbal and nonverbal reac­ moted in Enlightenment philosophy but tions to hearing the former story I had writ­ connected to others for understanding. We ten about taking care of her. Then, in an understand the self "not as an individual's italicized parallel narrative interwoven into personal and private cognitive structure but the story, I reflect upon my own reactions to as discourse about the self- the performance sharing the story with my mother: of languages available in the public sphere . . . the self as narrative rendered intelligible As I read this to her, I notice tears in her eyes. I within ongoing relationships" (Gergen, think again of how difficult it is to know what 1994, p. 185; see also Holstein & Gubrium, to say in these situations. I also think that bluntly acknowledging that she may never get 2000). Autoethnography points to the self as better might be difficult for both of us. Our re­ embedded in cultural meanings. Doing lationship, to some extent, is based on joy. I autoethnography affects the social construc­ come home to make her feel better, and it usu­ tion of the author's self. People make sense ally works. Yes, perhaps feeling better might of their experiences through the stories they mean accepting the pain and living the best life develop about them (Bruner, 1990). These Autoethnography 11' 455 stories are continually altered, never static; before there was only dread; the personal story we can retell them in ways that make them fit connected real people with feelings to the la­ better the "I" who tells them (see Jago, bels, where before there were only tactics of 2006). Doing autoethnography affects indi­ concealment and denial. Ibis research helped viduals who do the work of "re-storying" me understand the inextricable connections between categorical and personal knowledge. their lives; the autoethnographic story be­ (Ellis, 1998, p. 535) comes part of the life, an element of the on­ going construction of self. At times the story stands in for the experience itself and be­ Often labels become essentialized, taken as comes what one remembers as the experi­ inherent to a group instead of recognized ence (Ellis, 2004). as socially constructed (Ziarek, 2005). Fo­ Often autoethnographies feature stories cusing on individual narratives of self­ of resistance to stigmatizing labels. As Ken­ categorization troubles the naturalness of neth Gergen (2006) suggests, "When one such categories. commits to the dominant logics, values, and Collaborative self-making, such as that sanctioned patterns of action within a which occurs in interactive interviews and group, it is often at the expense of hushed focus groups, provides another opportunity but valued impulses to the contrary" in autoethnogTaphy to produce meaning (p. 122). Giving voice to those hushed im­ that is "neither subjective nor objective but pulses becomes a political act because lan­ intersubjective" (Onyx & Small, 2001, p. 775, guage is indeterminate and imbued with original emphasis). In interactive research, power relations. Autoethnography troubles participants act in an equal relationship as the socially constructed categories by show­ coresearchers with other authors/ research­ ing how they play out in the world and how ers, share authority, and author their own we incorporate them into our identities-or lives in their own voices. The group helps do not. "Ways of classifying human beings each member to construct the self. These ap­ interact with the human beings who are clas­ proaches give us a way to include the voice sified" (Hacking, 1999, p. 31). Hacking calls and feedback of all participants (Hawes, this an "interactive" kind of classification, as 1994; Reed-Danahay, 2001) and to under­ those who are classified modify their behav­ stand how participants "assign meaning to iors and beliefs because they are affected by their realities," rather than how we as re­ the classification label (as opposed to label­ searchers evaluate their realities (Daly, 1992, ing an element as iron, which causes no p. 8; see also Davis & Ellis, in press). change in the element's particles). Bringing the idea of interactive interviews The process can work both ways, as Caro­ to traditional focus groups, Carolyn, Cris lyn demonstrates in her story about the role Davis, and associates (Davis, Ellis, Myerson, of personal details and analysis in her study Poole, & Smith-Sullivan, 2006) have devel­ of minor bodily stigma: oped a methodological approach called in­ teractive focus groups. More than simply a I doubt that I would have been able to move large interactive interview, this method bor­ outside the category of minor bodily stigmas rows characteristics from traditional focus without first immersing myself in it. Categories groups and other methods, such as interac­ too often limit us without our being aware of tive interviewing (Ellis et al., 1997; Holstein their influence; once we are aware, too often & Gubrium, 1995), interactive group inter­ we assume there is no use in trying to break through them. Telling and analyzing my per­ views (Patton, 2002), leaderless discussion sonal story not only helped generate and make groups (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), and visible the category of minor bodily stigma, it the therapy practice of reflecting teams ( e.g., also provided a way through. The categorical Andersen, 1987, 1995). In an ongoing pro­ story offered a name to my experiences where ject on re/ claiming middle age, Carolyn and 456 " STRATEGIES AND TECHN1QUES four other women-all middle-aged ( 45-60 her and even to be inspired by her to write years old) white professionals-discuss aging their own stories: for women in 2006. These conversations take place in interactive focus groups. I provide my story as an incentive for you to put your own into words, compare your expe­ rience to mine, and find companionship in "I think that women like us arc socially con­ your sorrow (Mairs, 1993}. I speak my story so structing a different story [from our moth­ that you feel liberated to speak yours without ers]," Mary says. "We're not buying the canoni­ feeling guilty that others suffered more and cal story about what it's like to be an older therefore your story is not worth telling, your won1an." feelings unjustified. I believe we each need to Carolyn interjects, "What was one of the find personal and collective meaning in the first conversations everyone had when we first events that have transpired and in the dis­ walked in the door?" rupted and chaotic lives left behind. (Ellis, Kendall laughs. "Oh my age, oh my this, oh 2002b, p. 378) my allergies. My innards are so, blah, blah blah." "Right," Carolyn says. She turns to Marilyn. Autoethnography intentionally blurs the ''Look what we talk about when we go walking lines between self and others, between the every week." author's particular experiences and the Marilyn and Carolyn respond together. universality of those same experiences. "How are your aches and pains today?" Whereas autoethnographies of tragic and "Yeah," Carolyn says, "and it feels a lot like painful or at least difficult circumstances, the conversations I used to hear my mother such as most of Carolyn's and Laura's work, have." (Davis et al., 2006, p. 10} emphasize making meaning and forging connections, others call to joy and playful­ As researchers and participants, we probe ness, to making connections with auto­ the prevailing social constructions of ethnographers who want to share positive middle-aged women and debate how such experiences as opportunities for others to constructions reflect and do not reflect our celebrate their own strengths, successes, and lived realities as women. pleasures (e.g., Drew, 2001; Ellis, 2006; The highlighting of process in autoeth­ Lockford, 2004; Tillmann-Healy, 2001). It nography complements the work that the may be that we feel the connection between product, or representation, does in the ourselves and others most readily in the world-in academia and beyond. "Human wake of pain, fear, and loss, but we also con­ science inquiry is itself a form of social ac­ struct our positive meanings in relationship tion. Knowledge and application are not to others. fundamentally separable" (Gergen, 1994, p. 140). Readers take a more active role as they are invited into the author's world, as Art-Science feelings are evoked about the events being In the writing of evocative accounts, auto­ described, and as they are stimulated to use ethnographers blend analysis and narrative, what they learn there to reflect on, under­ troubling the socially constructed chasm be­ stand, and cope with their own lives. Auto­ tween science and the arts (Ellis, 2004). The ethnographers write meaningfully and choice of a genre influences perception of evocatively about topics that matter and that the audience regardless of the intended may make a difference, include sensory and meaning of the piece: emotional experience (Shelton, 1995), and write from an ethic of care and concern for the constructionist, there is good reason to (Denzin, 1997; Richardson, 1997). Carolyn be concerned with the form of writing . . . our invites readers to connect and identify with accounts of the world are not maps of the Autoethnography @ 457

world, but operate performatively, to do things thor), but how it could be or once was for with others. [We ask] what kind of world do we them. (Ellis, 1993, pp. 725 - 726) build together through our forms of inscrip­ tion? (Gergen, 1999, p. 185) Laura's social science autoethnographies usually contain citations to other academics Autoethnographers seek to build a world, and use an academic, disciplinary vocabu­ largely within the academy but also beyond, lary. Layered accounts (Ronai, 1995) move hi which art and science do not exist as a back and forth between academic prose and rigid and fixed dichotomy but instead form narrative, revealing their constructed nature a continuum of practices. Rather than op­ through the juxtaposition of social science posing traditional social science, most auto­ and narrative ways of knowing. In her ongo­ ethnographers (Carolyn and Laura among ing ethnography of an outpatient dialysis them) instead choose to engage in produc­ unit, Laura experiments with layering poetic tive play with social science writing and re­ representation of interview transcript ex­ search conventions, shedding light on the cerpts with academic discussion of the social constructed nature of the art-science di­ construction of professionalism in health chotomy and casting doubt on its inevitabil­ care to explore the knowledge construction ity or exclusive claims to truth. of the dialysis technicians. Medical profes­ One way to accomplish that goal involves sionals whose formal education far exceeds framing a narrative in a discussion of re­ that of the technicians largely ignore or search and theory before and/ or after the even scorn these paraprofessionals' exper­ narrative as I (Carolyn) did in writing about tise. Technicians resemble artisans, with a my brother's death. I followed the story with great deal of hands-on, tactile knowledge ah analysis of surviving the accidental death that is vital to caregiving but difficult to cif a loved one and a discussion of my desire transmit. to reposition social scientists and their read­ One poem, entitled 'Joking Around," de­ ers closer to literature. I wrote: scribes how the technicians adapt to the preferences of the patients they work with · This article brings ["after death"] into the over long periods of time: open, allowing us to converse about and try to understand it. As such it accomplishes what Yeah, you joke around with him, 'cause I Rorty (1982) says we should expect from social remember when he first came scientists- "to act as interpreters for those with to this clinic, he was whom we are not sure how to talk." ... This is, well to me he still is, after all, what we "hope for from our poets and a grumpy old man dramatists and novelists" (Rorty, 1982, p. 202). ... I seek to reposition readers vis a vis the au­ It took me a week or so until I figured thors of texts of social science research, evok­ him out. ing feeling and identification as well as cogni­ Give him a bad time. tive processing. As you read this story, some of Argue with him you may have felt empathy with me, as you and it makes him happy. That's him. would in watching a "true-to-life" movie; some You've got to be I hate to say it of you may have been reminded of parallels in To him it's not disrespectful, but your own lives, as in reading a good novel. Per­ you got to be haps reading my work evoked in you emo­ kind of like disrespectful towards him tional experience that you could then examine, and speak to him basically in his own or led to recall of other emotional situations in language which you have participated. Acknowledging a in order for him to be happy. potential for optional readings gives readers li­ And he has to complain cense to take part in an experience that can re­ to be happy ha ha veal to them not only how it was for me ( the au- Oh I love that old man. 458 ® STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES

He's one of those patients that when it's feel about or interpret what was happening· to time them. Others surely have been as bruised as we for him to go it's gonna hurt. were by the contradictions and ambivalence as­ And other patients it's "Yes ma'am, No sociated with the constraints of choice. The ab­ ma'am" sence of personal narratives to detail the emo­ 'cause that's the way they want it and tional complexities and ambivalence often with no joking around. (Ellingson, 2007) attributed generally to abortion . . . may be only the result of people feeling forced to ac­ These excerpts from the poem reflect my ed­ cept these blows of fate passively or being sub­ jected to taboos against expressing these dis­ iting of the technician's words and, as such, turbing feelings openly. Because abortion may reveal my views of his role in the dialysis still be deemed immoral . . . it can become unit. I constructed the poem to show what nearly impossible to find the words to talk I appreciated about this man-his earthy about what happened. Making public and vivid charm, innate kindness and gentleness, what some of the intricate details of abortion may I perceived to be his sincere attempts to break the barriers that shield public awareness serve his patients "as a professional." This and prevent marginalized voices of both blurring of the boundaries of art and science women and men from being heard. (Ellis & in my writing enriches readers' understand­ Bochner, 1992, p. 99) ing of the culture of this dialysis unit. As narrators and performers of this story, we gained a perspective on our experience Personal-Political and a sense of what it meant that we did not have before. The responses of others to our The impetus for arguing that something is performance and text strongly suggest that socially constructed generally arises when a they have been moved to feel and think phenomenon appears to be natural and in­ about themselves and others in new and im­ evitable (Hacking, 1999). Feminists have portant ways and to grasp and feel the am­ long argued that the personal is political. Re­ bivalence, confusion, and pain associated sisting the dichotomy of what should be pri­ with experiences of abortion such as ours. vate and what should be public, what is an in­ The response to the content of this story has dividual issue and what is a matter for the been both positive and negative, which of collective to address, often figures promi­ course met our intent of opening up conver­ nently in autoethnography. Autoethnogra­ sations, though it remains difficult to hear phers address issues such as child sexual some of the condemning remarks. abuse (Ronai, 1995), bulimia (Tillman­ Bodily details are certainly another one of Healy, 1996 ), the ravages of irritable bowel those personal details that many people . syndrome (Defenbaugh, in press), and the would rather not know. I (Laura) include death of a parent (Berger, 1997), bringing many of those in my book on an interdisci­ painful, intimate topics to share with others. plinary team, showing my experiences as a Many times autoethnography sheds light on cancer patient receiving chemotherapy, us­ uncomfortable issues that others wish would ing my own suffering to connect me to the remain hidden. patients and hospital where I did my re­ The article I (Carolyn) coauthored with search. For example: my partner Art on our abortion experience exemplifies the politics of a personal choice A sharp pain in my lower abdomen startled me and the personal implications of a hotly con­ into wal

slaught of toxic chemicals that was injected in Ian Hacking (1999) describes six "grades" that morning. The bone cancer had left my of commitment invoked by different con­ right leg a mess of grafts, stitches, and staples; structionist projects. His continuum spans there was no way I could get out of the bed, from historical constructionism, which ana­ find my crutches, and hobble co the bathroom lyzes a phenomenon and posits that it is the without losing control of my bladder. I was be­ result of historical events and social pro­ yond exhaustion, and by the time I woke up, my bladder was so full it hurt. I'd have to wait cesses and hence not inevitable, through for my nurse, Chris, to bring a bed pan. . .. revolutionary constructionism that overtly The hot yellow liquid streamed from my ure­ moves beyond writing and "the world of thra without my consent and the searing ideas" (1999, p . 20) to strive to bring about flames of shame swept over my face. Defeated, concrete change in the world. Autoethnog­ I let the tears flow with the urine. My pelvic raphy may reflect any grade of commitment muscles relaxed gratefully even as my buttocks to change. Many people's lives have been cringed in retreat from the growing wetness transformed through the process of com­ that surrounded them. (Ellingson, 2005a, posing their own stories and of hearing p. 87) those of others; others have been moved to action through telling and reading personal We engage in political work when we openly narratives (Ellis, 2002a). Thus autoethnog­ discuss bodily details that society tells us are raphy certainly can be one tool in the social shameful, for we resist the social imperative change tool box, particularly in its potential to remain ashamed and hence complicit in to spark creative and productive discourse. our powerlessness (Mairs, 1997). Dialogue moves us toward constructing a We embrace troubling the taken-for­ better world (Gergen, 2006). Many, if not grantedness of the world in order to give most, researchers publish autoethnography voice to oppression and move people to ac­ in academic outlets. Those who seek tion or new beliefs and understandings. Yet broader audiences and revolutionary social social constructionist projects such as change may need to move beyond tradi­ autoethnography are not inherently liberat­ tional academic outlets, such as journals, ing; material realities do not change simply handbooks, and edited collections, to main­ because we reveal their origins and sociopo­ stream outlets, such as trade and popular litical complexities; poverty, for example, books. may be shown to be socially constructed as being the fault of the poor, but noting unjust portrayals does nothing to alleviate the Could Dichotomies Be Useful?: crushing oppression of poverty. People A Concluding Dialogue must be in a position to benefit from the crit­ ical analysis offered by autoethnography Carolyn: Laura, after cowriting this chap­ and other critical methods: "Social construc­ ter with you, I was thinking about how di­ tion theses are liberating chiefly for those chotomies come to seem so natural and who are on the way to being liberated . . . inevitable; "the reality of everyday life is [those] whose consciousness has already taken for granted as reality" (Berger & been raised" (Hacking, 1999, p. 2). Some Luckmann, 1966, p. 23). We seldom no­ methods claim liberation as an explicit in­ tice how often we invoke these socially tent of their project: Practitioners of the constructed norms within social science memory-work method suggest it "is thus ex­ simply because they are so foundational to plicitly liberationist in its intent" (Onyx & our sense of methodological reality. While Small, 2001, p. 774). The connection be­ autoethnography troubles tal

You operate primarily in the large middle phasize any of these. I am concerned that ground of the methodological continuum, those in power positions or who fear losing so nondichotomous thinking may be to your relative power may try to appropriate advantage. For me, working on the humani­ autoethnography primarily by watering it ties end, which traditional ethnographers down so much that it is unrecognizable and view as more marginal, that might be less thus no longer potentially challenging to true. Politically, it might be smart for me to their definitions of what is included in eth­ encourage people to think in terms of di­ nography and what is not. chotomies, at least for a while, because it Laura: I recognize the political necessity brings focus to what I do. For example, Leon of challenging existing power structures and Anderson's (2006) article, which views ana­ their policing of disciplinary and method­ lytic and evocative autoethnographies as di­ ological boundaries (Blair, Brown, & Baxter, chotomous, actually had the unintended 1994). But relying on existing dichotomies consequence of calling the attention of an to take our stand concedes most of the audience of realist ethnographers to the ground to those in power before we even be­ kind of autoethnography I do. It provided a gin. As Audre Lorde (1984) explained, "The venue for autoethnographers to speak back master's tools will never dismantle the mas­ and "claim" territory, which is important in ter's house" (p. 110). Reifying positivist di­ this phase of the interpretive "social move­ chotomies in order to challenge the socially ment" going on in ethnographic circles. The constructed boundaries of methodological resistance of Art [Bochner] and me to the re­ legitimacy seems no more effective as a dis­ alists' attempt to claim and rename auto­ mantling strategy. The question for me be­ ethnography put us in the center of the comes, then, how do we help everyone debate. We have something other, more to stake tl1eir ground-including my boun­ mainstream ethnographers want. I recog­ dary spanning, crystallizing ground-in nize this as dichotomous thinking, but I still ways that go beyond defining our stories think it can be useful as long as we see it for dichotomously-as not analysis, our analysis what it is-a political strategy rather than as not loose or weak, our personal details as necessarily useful for knowledge produc­ not distant, our grounded theory as not tion. merely one case? Laura: You're arguing for strategic esse­ This recalls Gergen's ideas about how we ntialism a la Gayatri Spivak (1988), who sug­ define things in opposition. Scholars under­ gests that we can't fight for women's (or stand the positivist rules of social science other groups') rights ifwe unrelentingly de­ primarily through what they exclude~ construct the category of women. Thus you subjectivity, intimacy, stories, and so on­ can't uphold the value of what you do as an and autoethnographers have challenged autoethnographer if you can't define it and these socially constructed standards by fla­ stake some territory. grantly violating them (Gergen, 1999). I can Carolyn: I believe that. But we need not see why that is helpful. When Leon uses the have a rigid definition of autoethnography, analytic versus evocative dichotomy, he en­ in terms of what's included and what's ex­ ables you to speak up for your position~ cluded from the category (Ellis, 2004). However, this also recollects what I said Autoethnography is an evolving and fluid about how dichotomies present as opposites approach. But to call a work autoethnog­ what are actually interdependent for mean" raphy means it should share at least some, if ing. Thus we cannot have autoethnography not all, of the most important elements of if there isn't realist ethnography for con~ the category-a focus on personal story, evo­ trast. cation, and narrative writing. Anderson's Carolyn: Though the realists would like to 0 conception of autoethnography didn't em- think they can have realist ethnography with . Autoethnography • 461

out autoethnography because they think too. But haven't we already made the case realist ethnography is ethnography and that autoethnography is useful, meaningful, autoethnography, if it should exist at all, and legitimate? What comes after anger and would be subsumed under their label. That's defensiveness? Shouldn't we explore inter­ what can happen if we don't honor dichoto­ dependency instead of opposition? mies, I'm afraid. We all become one cate­ Carolyn: That sounds good in theory, but gory, like women all used to be lumped in practice it's difficult because the goals of under mankind, and masculine pronouns autoethnographers and realists are differ­ stood for all of us. ent. To be interdependent we have to agree I think nuanced disagreement is impor­ on goals for our research, or at least agree tant. Don't new ways of thinking come out of that it is legitimate and worthwhile to have this kind of dialogue? And aren't things different goals. Autoethnog:raphers honor sometimes improved with new paradigms meaning, intelligibility, and interpretation that address gaps and holes that older para­ as their goals, whereas the realists look more digms ignore or miss? Conflict can be useful; to facts and representation. Given these dif­ it can point the way for change. Sometimes ferences, it's hard to agree on how to go it's productive to get our dander up, feel a about achieving our purposes (Bochner, little angry, and be determined to show the 1985). Then there's also power politics. value of our position. You might argue that This conversation makes me laugh, be­ adrenaline could limit our perspective, but I cause I'm usually the "let's get along" and also think feeling revved up about some­ "here are the ways in which we overlap thing can help us do deeper work. I feel rather than divide" person, and you're more that's been the case for me. into power politics. Now we've switched Besides, too much lukewarm agreement, sides. I've become more watchful. I don't which I predict would happen if we gave up want to give in to people who then, instead entirely on dichotomies, would interfere of meeting me halfway, view my giving in as with the word games that academics like to a weakness and an opportunity to control play. Sometimes when I argue with realists my voice with theirs. over meanings, I wonder if that's all we're I try not to think in terms of power poli­ doing- acting as wordsmiths. I don't know tics, but I also know that if I ignore that real­ how important these games are in the whole ity, I stand to lose a lot of ground. Granted, scheme of things. Sometimes I think this my work has flourished from my concentrat­ kind of debate isn't really important at all, ing on what I do well, rather than defending except to protect the few measly resources it and debating with people who criticize represented in the struggle. I doubt word what I do. But sometimes that debate be­ mining and position defending contribute comes important, because many graduate to making the world a better place. Maybe students and young professors need senior these disagreements simply entertain us un­ scholars to take a position and speak back, to til rigor morris sets in. help them in their quest for their autoethno­ Laura: I'm not sure how entertaining they graphic projects to be taken seriously. So are. In the beginning of autoethnography, it sometimes I think we need to come on made sense to harness that adrenaline to re­ strong and show that we're not going to roll inforce the differences- and hence value­ over and play dead. We're resisting en­ inherent in our position. Someone else had croachment and defending what we care all the methodological power, and so we be­ about. But I'm aware that this position is in­ gan by getting angry and critiquing them to consistent with what I've argued in the past stake our ground. Feminists started with and has its consequences, such as conflict similar opposition-race scholars, queer the­ with people who have more similarities with orists, and now autoethnographers have, me than differences. 462 $ STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES

Laura: Exactly. Perhaps the first step to­ That would make us a stronger coalition ward mutual accommodation with produc­ against the positivists, with whom we have tive, collaborative debate is to find a lan­ more differences than we do with each guage of interdependency to replace or at other. Of course, that just changes the least augment the language of war and oppositional group. opposition. You present something along Laura: I'd like to know if it is possible to this line in your response to Bill Tierney, stand next to the positivists rather than who critiqued autoethnography (Ellis, against them. 2002a). Carolyn: I'm not sure we have enough in Carolyn: Yes-I suggested that we respond common witl1 them, or they with us, to make to critique with "yes, and ... " rather than standing next to each other a worthwhile "yes, but.... " goal. Laura: Yes, and a language of interdepen­ Laura: Aren't you and I the perfect exam­ dency would explain how autocthnography ple? Within the context of our relationship,• needs realist ethnography, how stories call we care deeply about each other. We stand out for theory, how theories require specific together. Yet we do different work, and we cases. We need to surrender the battle disagree, if not on what is legitimate, then metaphors about "laying claim," "seizing on priorities, on what is most valuable and ground," "defending our turf," and "giving worthy of spending our time on. This real­ power" to the other side and imagine new ization pained me at first, because I not only ways of relating-sharing the loaf, swimming cared about you but also wanted you to be alongside each other, planting a bountiful proud ofme. Perhaps it disappointed you as garden with many varieties of fruits, vegeta­ well. But we moved past that and con­ bles, and flowers, and so on. The use of war­ structed a way of relating that celebrates our like metaphors fosters an equation of commonalities and respects our differences.· argument with violence (Lakoff & Johnson, As in our relationship, methodologists could 1980). Because "through language an entire address differences of opinion by making world can be actualized" (Berger & Luck­ room for commonalities and differences (oh mann, 1966, p. 39), we should consider care­ no-is that dichotomy[?). I don't want to fully the implications of our choice to actual­ sound hopelessly optimistic, and I know ma" ize a pervasively violent world. I don't want terial outcomes are at stal<.e (like tenure). to suggest that we pretend there is no con­ Carolyn: You and I get along because we flict but that we introduce language into our love and respect each other but also because debates that offers some hope of accommo­ we see ourselves as having more commonali­ dation rather than merely reinvoking the ties than differences in the areas that matter. same old power struggle over who's right We are both academics, ethnographers, and who's wrong. social scientists, communication scholars, Carolyn: Part of a solution is to see one­ women, responsible people, and so on. Be­ self as interdependent with members of a sides, you're not a positivist! Just kidding. relevant community, such as the community Our differences really don't amount to of ethnographers. For example, in the re­ much. What's more interesting to me is sponse to Anderson (Ellis & Bochner, 2006), when the differences do matter. If you wrote I pointed out commonalities among all ofus a piece that attacked autoethnography, then who do ethnography, no matter how we la­ our differences would be more salient. The bel ourselves. I worry sometimes that we same might be true if I attacked the work aren't accomplishing as much as we could if you do, which is some of what you felt in the all ethnographers joined together and initial stages of your dissertation. It's not as thought of themselves as a community with though our work and relationships can't sur­ multiple shared goals and mutual standards. vive some criticism and disagreement; they Autoethnography e 463

can. And sometimes they're enhanced as a Carolyn: I surely hope so. But wait a sec­ result, as I said before. But if all we hear is ond... . critique, especially disrespectful critique ... Laura and Carolyn (Together): Oh, no, well, it has an effect. At some point, it would isn't that another dichotomy? be nice to show some appreciation for the work of others. Maybe academics just don't show enough respect for what those doing e References different work are achieving. We're schooled in the "shootout at the OK Corral" Andersen, T . ( 1987). The reflecting team; Dialogue and mode. That's hard to get rid of-try as we m etadialogue in clinical work. Family Process, 26, 415-428. might-for us as well as "them." Andersen, T. (1995). Reflecting processes: Acts of in­ Laura: I agree that more traditional re­ forming and forming. In S. F1iedman (Ed.), The re­ searchers seldom express respect for flecting team in action: Collaborative practice in fa.mily autoethnographers, at least not overtly, and therapy (pp. 11-37). New York: Guilford Press. many offer criticism. And I am continually Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373-395. amazed by how much casual bashing of oth­ Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamortt, S., Lofland, J., & ers' work I hear in the hallways at confer­ Lofland, L. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of ethnograj1hy. ences (let alone in sessions), by people Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ranging all across the methodological con­ Behar, R. (1996). The vulnerable observer: Anthropolo,(fj tinuum. Perhaps I find this particularly pain­ that breaks your heart. Boston: Beacon Press. Berger, L. (1997). Between the candy store and the ful because my work spans a larger than av­ mall: The spiritual loss of a father.Joumal ofP ersonal erage chunk of the continuum, leaving me and Interpersonal Loss, 2, 397-409. vulnerable to critique from a great number Berger, L. (2001). Inside out; Narrative autoethnog­ of positions. I am left to ponder, could we raphy as a path coward rapport. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, move past tolerance to appreciation of dif­ 504- 518. ferences? And can we do that without rein­ Berger, P., & Ludemann, T. (1966). The social construc­ tion of reality. Garden Ci ty, NY: Doubleday. forcing dichotomies? Maybe not. Maybe I'm Blair, C., Brown, J. R., & Baxter, L. A. (1994). Disci­ too idealistic, and dichotomies really are plining the feminine. Quarterly j ournal of Speech, 80, needed for clarification and debate. 383- 409. Carolyn: No, don't give up that easily. We Bochner, A. (1985). Perspectives on inquiry: Represen­ need the large, messy middle ground to hold tation, conversation, and reflection. In M. Knapp & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of personal communication us all together, and right now I feel pretty (pp. 27- 58). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. messy. This conversation makes me aware Bochner, A., & Ellis, C. (1999). Which way to turn?Jour­ that I can and often do construct my posi­ nal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28, 485-499. tion about dichotomies from both sides . .. I Boylorn, R. (2006). E pluribus unum (Out of many, mean, at numerous points along the contin­ one). Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 651-680. Bruner,J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Har­ uum. While I see this kind of questioning vard University Press. and messiness as functional for helping me Daly, K. (1992). The fit between qualitative research think through what's going on, it's not a and characteristics of families. InJ. Gilgun, K. Daly, strength that is appreciated often in the & G. Handel (Ed~.), Qualitative methods in family re­ academy. The academy rewards us for search (pp. 3-11). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Davis, C., & Ellis, C. (in press). Emergent methods in "taking and defending a position." Maybe autoethnographic research. In S. Nagy Hesse-Biber that's what leads to dichotomies-the push & P. Leavy (Eds.), The handbook of emergent methods. to take a position, make a case, defend our New York: Guilford Press. work. Davis, C. , Ellis, C., Myerson, M., Poole, M., & Smith­ Laura: As you know, I'm happiest in the Sullivan, K. (2006, November). The menopause club: Five hot middle-aged women sitting around talking about messy middle ground. Do you think we can their bodies. Paper presented at the conference of the ever find a peaceful academic corral to re­ National Communication Association, San Antonio, place the oppositional "shootout" one? TX. 464 e STRATEGIES AND TECHNJQUES

Defenbaugh, N. (in press). "Under erasure": The absent Ellis, C. (2000). Negotiating terminal illness: Communi­ "ill" body in doctor-patient dialogue. Qualitative In­ cation, collusion, and coalition in caregiving. In .J. quiry. Harvey & E. D. Miller (Eds.), Loss and trauma: General Dem:in, N. ( 1989). Inteipretive biography. Newbury Park, and close relationship perspectives (pp. 284-304). Lon­ CA: Sage. don: Brunner-Routledge. Denzin, N. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic Ellis, C. (2001). With mother/with child: A true story. practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Qy,alitative Inquiry, 7, 598-616. Sage. Ellis, C. (2002a). Being real: Moving inward toward so­ Drew, R. (2001). Karaoke nights: An ethnographic rhap­ cial change. IntemationalJoumal of Qualitative Studies sody. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. in Education, 15(4), 399-406. Ellingson, L. L. (1998). "Then you know how I feel": Ellis, C. (2002b ). Shattered lives: Making sense of Sep­ Empathy, identification, and reflexivity in fieldwork. tember 11th and its aftermath.Journal of Contempo­ Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 492-514. rary Ethnography, 31, 375-410. Ellingson, L . L. (2002). The roles of companions in the Ellis, C. (2002c). Take no chances. Qualitative Tnquiry, 8, geriatric oncology patient-interdisciplinary health 170- 175. care provider interaction.Journal ofAging Studies, 16, Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I· A methodological novel 361-382. about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira EIJingson, L. L. (2003). Interdisciplinary health care Press. teamwork in the clinic backstage. Journal of Applied Ellis, C. (2006). The emotional life: A tribute to Ron Communication Research, 31, 93-117. Pelias. In N. Denzin (Ed.), Studies in symbolic interac­ Ellingson, L. L. (2005a). Communicating in the clinic: Ne­ tion (Vol. 29, pp. 9-16). Amsterdam: Elsevier. · gotiating Jrontstage and backrtage teamwork. Cresskill, Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (1992). Telling and perform­ NJ: Hampton Press. ing personal stories: The constraints of choice in Ellingson, L. L. (2005b, November). Ritua~ repetition, abortion. In C. Ellis & M. Flaherty (Eds.), Investi­ and difference: Perceptions of time in a dialysis unit. Pa­ gating subjectivity: Research on lived experience (pp. 79:... per presented at the conference of the National 101). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Communication Association, Boston. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, Ellingson, L. L. (2006). Embodied knowledge: Writing personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. researchers' bodies into qualitative health research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Health Research, 16, 298-310. qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733- 768). Thousand Ellingson, L. L. (2007). The poetics of professionalism Oaks, CA: Sage. among dialysis technicians. Unpublished manuscript. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2006). Analyzing· analytic J<:llingson, L. L. (in press-a). Ethnography in applied autoethnography: An autopsy. Journal of Contemf,o'. communication research. In L. R. Frey & K. Cissna ra1y Ethnography, 35, 429- 449. (Eds.), The handbook ofapplied communication research. Ellis, C., & Ellingson, L. L. (2000). Qualitative methods. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. In E. F. Borgatta & R.J. V. Montgomery (Eds.), Ency­ Ellingson, L. L. (in prcss-b). The performance of dialy­ clopedia of sociology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 2287- 2296). sis care: Routinization and adaptation on the floor. New York: Macmillan. Health Communication, 22(2). Ellis, C., Kiesinger, C., & Tillmann-Healy, L. (1997). In­ Ellingson, L. L., & Sotirin, P. (2006). Exploring young teractive interviewing: Talking about emotional ex­ adults' perspectives on communication with aunts. perience. In R. Hertz (Ed.), Reflexivity and voice Journal nf Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 499- (pp. 119-149). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 517. Foucault, M. ( 1975 ). Discipline and punish: The birth ofthe Ellis, C. (1986). Fisherfolk: Two communities on Chesa­ prison (A. Shelidan, Trans.). New York: Vintage pcahe Bay. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Books. Ellis, C. (1991a). Emotional sociology. In N. Denzin Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relatiomhips: Sound­ (Ed.), Studies in symbolic interaction (Vol. 12, pp. 123- ings in social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 145). Greenwich, CT: JAi Press. University Press. 1':llis, C. (1991b). Sociological introspection and emo­ Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. tional experience. Symbolic Interaction, 14, 23-50. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ellis, C. (1993). "There are survivors": Telling a story of Gergen, K.J. (2006). Social construction as an ethics of si,;dden death. Sociological Qy,arterly, 34, 711-730. infinitude: Reply to Brinkrnarm. journal of Humanfr­ Ellis, C. (1995). Speaking of dying: An ethnographic tic Psychology, 46, 119- 125. short story. Symbolic Interaction, 18, 73-81. Gergen, M. M ., & Gergen, K. J. (2002). Ethnographic Ellis, C. (1996). Maternal connections. In C. Ellis & A. representation as relationship. In A. P. Bochner & C. Bochner (Eds.), Composing ethnography (pp. 240- Ellis (Eds.), Ethnographically speaking: Autoethnog­ 243). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. raphy, literature, and aesthetics (pp. 11-33). Walnut Ellis, C. (1998). "I hatemyvoice": Coming to terms with Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. minor bodily stigma. Sociological Qy,arterly, 39, 517- Goodall, H . L. (2000). Writing the new ethnograj,hy. Wal­ 537. nut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Auto ethnography s 465

Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (1997). The new language of Reed-Danahay, D. (2001). Autobiography, intimacy, qualitative method. New York: Oxford University Press. and ethnography. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, Hacking, I. ( 1999). The social construction of what? Cam­ S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Handbook of ethnography (pp. 407- 425). London: Harris, S. R. (2006). Social construction and social in­ Sage. equality: An introduction to a special issue ofJCE. Richardson, L. (1994). Nine poems: Maniage and the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 223- 235. family.Journal ofCont empomry Ethnography, 23, 3-14. Hawes, L. C. (1994). Revisiting reflexivity. Wr.sternJour­ Richardson, L. ( 1997). Fields ofplay: Consti-ucting an aca­ nal of Communication, 58, 5-10. demic life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Holman Jones, S. (1998). Kaleidoscope notes: Writing Press. women 's mmic and organizational culture. Walnut Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A met110cl of inquiry. In Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. N . K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook ofqual ­ Holstein,]. A., & Gubrium,J. F. (1995). The active inte1° itative research (2nd ed., pp. 923-949). Thousand view. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Oaks, CA: Sage. Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2000). The self we live Richardson, L., & Lockridge, E. (2004). Travels with Er­ by: Narrat-ive identity in a postmodern world. New York: ne.st. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Oxford University Press. Ronai, C. (1995). Multiple reflections on childhood sex Hunt, S. A., & Junco, N. R. (2006). Analytic autho­ abuse: An argument for a layered account.Journal of ethnography (Special issue). J ournal of Cont(!'lnpo1my Contempormy Ethnography, 23, 395~426. Ethnography, 35(4). Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences ofpragmatism. Minneapo­ Jackson, M. ( 1989). Paths toward a clearing: Radical empir­ lis: University of Minnesota Press. icism and ethnographic inquiry. Bloomington: Indiana Secklin, P. (2001). Multiple fractures in time: Reflec­ University Press. tions on a car crash. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 6, Jago, B. (2006). A primary act of imagination: An 323-334. autoethnography of father-absence. Qualitative In­ Shelton, A. ( 1995 ). Foucault's maclonna: The secret life quiry, 12, 398-426. of Carolyn Ellis. Symbolic Interaction, 18, 83- 87. Kiesinger, C. (2002). My father's shoes: The therapeutic Spivak, G. C. (1988). Subaltern studies: Deconstructing value of narrative reframing. In A. P. Bochne1· & C. historiography. In R. Guha & G. C. Spivak (Eds.), Se­ Ellis (Eds.), Ethnographically speaking: Autoeth­ lected subaltern studies (pp. 3-34). New York: Oxford nography, literature, and aesthetics (pp. 95- 114). Wal­ University Press. nut Creek, CA: Altai\.:lira Press. Spry, T. (1997). Skins: A daughter's reconstruction of Krieger, S. (1991). Sot:ial science and the self: Personal es­ cancer: A performative autobiography. Text and Per­ says on an artfo1'1n. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Uni­ formanc~ Q;larterly, 17, 361-365. versity Press. Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus Lakoff, G., &Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we lfoe by. grouj1s: Theo,y and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tedlock, B. (1991). From participant observation to the Linden, R. R. ( 1992). Making stories, making selves: Femi­ observation of participation: The emergence of nar­ nist reflections on the Holocaust . Columbus: Ohio State rative ethnography. Journal of Anthropological Re­ University. search, 41, 69-94. Lockford, L. (2004). Perfonningfemininity: Rewriting gen­ Tillmann-Healy, L. (1996). A secret life in a culture of der identity. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira l'ress. thinness: Reflections on body, food, and bulimia. In Larde, A. ( 1984 ). Sister ouLsider: Essays and sjJeeches. Free­ C. Ellis & A. P. Bochner (Eels.), Composing ethnogra­ dom, CA: The Crossing Press. fJhy: Alternative fonns of qualitative writing (pp. 77- Mairs, N. ( 1997). Carnal acts. In K. Conboy, N. Medina, 109). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. & S. Stanbury (Eds.), W1iting on the body: Feinale em­ Tillmann-Healy, L. (2001). Between gay and straight: Un­ bodiment and.feminist theory (pp. 296- 305). New York: derstandingfriend.ship across sexual orientation. Walnut Columbia University Press. Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Onyx,]., & Small,]. (2001 ). Memory-work: The method. Van Maancn, .J. (19 88). 'Tales of the field: On writing eth­ Qualitative lnqui1y, 7, 773- 786. nography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation Van Maanen,J. (1995). An end to innocence: TI1e eth­ methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. nography of ethnography. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Personal Narratives Group. (Eds.). (1989). Interpreting Ref1resentation in ethnog;raphy (pp. 1-35). Thousimd women's lives: Feminist theo1y and p(!'l-sonal narrat-ives. Oaks, CA: Sage. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ziarek, E. P. (2005). The abstract soul of the commodity Potter, W. J. (1995). An analysis of thinking and research and the monstrous body of the sphinx: Commodifi­ about qualitative methods. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. cation, aesthetics, and the impasses of social con­ Reecl-Danahay, D. (1997). Auto/Ethnography: Rewriting struction. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural the self and the social. Oxford, UK: Berg. Studies, 16, 88-115.