Auto-ethnography

If ethnography is the patient observation, recording and interviewing about the meaning of what is observed, auto-ethnography has some difficulties. Observing our own selves and lives presents challenges. An outsider ethnographer comes with their own package of assumptions and has to put these to one side to enter into the spirit of what is happening. The assumptions of the auto-ethnographer about themselves and their own life and motivations is perhaps too entrenched to achieve this. We are not asking for objectivity to be achieved - turning one's own subjective self into an object is probably impossible. In grammar, the reflexive verb has the same subject and object (such as "I enjoy myself") so we term this way of thinking as reflexivity. Equally, we cannot observe ourselves, but can observe our reflections (through video, tape, or channeled through other people's eyes. So we call this discussion "reflective".

Ethnography built its roots on the social anthropology of far away places, quickly colonised by the sociology of the near at hand. Ethnographers were generally strangers to what they were observing, who tried to make friends to view things as though from inside. The anthropologist Hortense Powdermaker made this her title of her autobiography: Stranger and Friend (1966). 'Native' ethnographers who knew matters from the inside were likely to make fewer assumptions but had to learn how to think out of the box, and not be institutionalised by the context in which they had been brought up. Their focus may have been on their own culture, but was broader than being on their own role within it.

Auto-ethnography is sometimes used in place of autobiography or memoir, so I will clarify the difference. An autobiography attempts to record ones life, from memory, in chronological order. Details might be checked with others, and with documents. Depending on the audience, some details are likely to be censored, and others spun to shed best light on the subject. Words have social and legal consequences, which the wise autobiographer thinks through. This of course is anathema in ethnography where all detail, observed and spoken, play a part in the whole picture.

Whether auto-ethnography is possible I am putting on hold for the moment. Rather I am laying ground rules for robust study of one's own role and performance in life and in work. Then we can judge its viability.

The auto-ethnographer can remove the problem of autobiography by concentrating on those things which would be censored. The details of course are not for publication, and a mixture of anonymity and fiction could provide a comfort zone. For example, a group could discuss anonymous fictional accounts rooted in the censored incident with the ground rule that the author does not self identify. An author can feel distanced from the fictional account and even comment without embarrassment alongside fellows. The group can then draw general conclusions across the accounts discussed.

The autobiographer writes 'self' without 'other'. The ethnographer tries to study 'other' with as little self as possible. The auto-ethnographer needs to learn to treat self as other and lay on one side presuppositions, assumptions, status, self esteem etc. Some guidance may help.

• it may help to arrange to be interviewed, to tape, by an experienced interviewer (experienced on the topic and in interviewing). The interview needs to be probing, hard edged, challenging. The transcript is the subject through the eyes of another.
• it may help to ask others to write anonymously an account of the subject on the prescribed topic. For example, a Headteacher asked her staff for accounts of how they perceived her management style. Ensuring that these are anonymous and cannot be used managerially adds to their authenticity.
• The use of an administrator to ensure texts such as emails are properly anonymised will be essential - otherwise it constitutes an ethical threat.

Phenomenology.
Much appears to be but is not necessarily so. A philosophical position rooted in not making presuppositions has been called phenomenology, the study of appearances or manifestations. Our self esteem is such a set of appearances: in making them the centre of study, we have to learn to 'bracket out' any presuppositions about ourselves and seek for an open mind. Our internalised understandings and stereotypes get in the way of having an open mind, so we need to get back to 'the things themselves', without its mental spin in our heads. So far, this strategy can have benefit in auto-ethnography when personal point of view is consistently bracketed away to leave raw data, as opposed to interpretation. In the end, it may be all interpretation, but to be able to study the way we interpret events is itself instructive. After Schutz, the study of our everyday experience of x or y became popular. It works best with phenomena without concrete existence. To study a chair requires observation. To study our experience of using a chair, or quality in chairs takes it to another level. Quality is a phenomenon that we find meaningful; but quality cannot be distilled into a test-tube. So phenomenology is highly relevant to our wish to research of everyday experiences of work, play, or domesticity. We can separate the thing itself from our interpretations of it; both offer insights.

Personality.
For auto-ethnography, we might dig a little into what kind of a person we are. Personality research has clustered its many points into five umbrella 'traits' - these might be our starting point. I use the OCEAN mnemonic:

• O - am I open to persuasion? or are my ideas fixed? if I am between, what is fixed and what is open? Can I trust my judgements? or am I self-centred and over-confident (false self esteem)?
  
• C- am I conscientious? or lazy? does conscientious mean 'doing one's duty' or 'doing as I am told'? does this leave time for personal creativity?
• E - am I extroverted, or introverted? do I prefer company to being alone? in company, do I need to dominate? do I want everyone to know my opinions? do I want people to agree with me? Or am I fearful of being contradicted and prefer to keep my council? Where in between am I?
• A - am I agreeable or disagreeable? If agreeable, am I prepared to disagree with another over a matter of fact or opinion? Will I stand up for truth and justice? If I am disagreeable, do I just like to argue for the sake of it? Am I cynical and dismissive of the efforts of others?
• N - am I neurotic (that is, excessively anxious, worried about everything) or so laid back I never bother to get out of bed? Where in between to I plot myself - what worries me, what can I accept with reasonable relaxation? How fearful of the past and future am I? Can I enjoy the present?

Working in a team: The Belbin test
Am I a leader/organiser? content to be a follower or foot-soldier? am I the ideas person? am I pernicity about detail? Do I finish what I start? am I a saboteur? Is the balanced person a mixture of all these?

Self-definition - how do I define myself?
Identity
How do I define my identity? By nation, colour, religion, football team? Family, work, relationships? Try to summarise your identity in a sentence. Which parts give you the greatest satisfaction and self esteem? With give you the least of both?

Criticality
Am I critical of the state of the world? The injustices, the divisions between rich and poor, the haves and the have nots. Do I think the status quo should be changed for the greater good even if I am privileged in it?

Summing up
To research one's self, life and work requires us to draw on detailed observations, some of which could come from video, and some from other people. There has to be a strong 'other people' element. A critical friend can work with the individual in new schemes, the discussion becoming data. The principle of allowing no assumptions to be unexamined should be maintained throughout. This will also reveal insights into how we view and interpret our world, and what motivates our point of view.

There is a benefit. The researcher may be a teacher with 20 years of experience. This has strengths and weaknesses - an understanding perhaps about educational processes, perhaps, but assumptions that are socialised but unhelpful, parochial 'the way we do it here' attitudes which prevents change. The aim will be to distill the good whilst understanding and eliminating the unhelpful.