What makes the Autoethnographic Analysis Authentic?

David Weir, Daniel Clarke

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    This paper engages with current issues raised, among others, by Delamont (Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5–8 September 2007), relating to the merits of autoethnographic accounts. Delamont criticizes much current work in autoethnographic styles on a number of grounds as, for example, “intellectually lazy” and unrooted in general theoretical and structural frames. This paper uses an analysis and comparison of two separate productions using autoethnographic methods to develop, support, and to nuance these critiques and draws attention to relevant uses of the autoethnographic mode in both scholarly research and pedagogy.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationEthnographic Research and Analysis
    Subtitle of host publicationAnxiety, Identity and Self
    EditorsTom Vine, Jessica Clark, Sarah Richards, David Weir
    Place of PublicationLondon
    PublisherPalgrave Macmillan
    Pages127-154
    Number of pages27
    ISBN (Electronic)9781137585554
    ISBN (Print)9781137585547
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Jan 2018

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

  • Cite this

    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