This paper engages with current issues raised, among others, by Delamont (Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5–8 September 2007), relating to the merits of autoethnographic accounts. Delamont criticizes much current work in autoethnographic styles on a number of grounds as, for example, “intellectually lazy” and unrooted in general theoretical and structural frames. This paper uses an analysis and comparison of two separate productions using autoethnographic methods to develop, support, and to nuance these critiques and draws attention to relevant uses of the autoethnographic mode in both scholarly research and pedagogy.
|Title of host publication||Ethnographic Research and Analysis|
|Subtitle of host publication||Anxiety, Identity and Self|
|Editors||Tom Vine, Jessica Clark, Sarah Richards, David Weir|
|Place of Publication||London|
|Number of pages||27|
|Publication status||Published - Jan 2018|
Weir, D., & Clarke, D. (2018). What makes the Autoethnographic Analysis Authentic? In T. Vine, J. Clark, S. Richards, & D. Weir (Eds.), Ethnographic Research and Analysis: Anxiety, Identity and Self (pp. 127-154). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58555-4_8