Autoethnography as research method: a pathway to more diverse voices in positive psychology   — ASN Events
  1. Schedule
  2. Afternoon Tea & Poster Session 2
  3. Autoethnography as research method: a pathway to more diverse voices in positive psychology  

Autoethnography as research method: a pathway to more diverse voices in positive psychology   (#902)

Kimberley Wakefield 1 2
  1. Positive Psychology, Buckinghamshire New University, High Wycombe, UK
  2. Canadian Positive Psychology Association, Toronto, ON, Canada

Background

In support of the call for more qualitative research in the field of positive psychology to add richness and depth to our ever evolving understanding of human flourishing (Rich, 2017).  I am specifically addressing authoethnography as an underutilized, challenged and often devalued methodology (Denzin, 2003) and because of what I believe it can do.  There are many discussions in the literature surrounding how autoethnography amplifies voices that have been silenced and how it attracts those who feel marginalized (Campbell, 2017; Grant, 2010; Holt, 2003; Sparkes, 2003).  

Aims

This talk will be for positive psychology researchers and academics who are interested in moving the field of study towards a more inclusive and representative set of voices, hearing from those who often feel shut out.  Filling the need for more diversity in our understanding which is critical to meeting the global call for social justice.  

Method

I will also lay out a methodology for how autoethnographies can be encouraged and approached for inclusion into academic literature drawing on some of the expertise from experts such as Chang (2008).  Addressing the potential conflicts of autoethnography and traditional scientific study of objectivity and universal applicability.

Results

I believe the nature of a firsthand account of human experiences poses some unique challenges for both researchers and supervisors which involve safety, confidentiality, and validity as well as an assurance that the work adds to or moves the needle in the field of study. I will address these challenges and share strategies on how to deal with and evaluate them. These will be pulled from both my own experience of writing an autoethnography for my MAPP dissertation for which I received a Mark of Distinction, as well as other experts.

Conclusion

We are at a point where these voices need to be heard and learned from and not allow the rigours of objectivity and replicability of the scientific method silence them.

  1. Campbell, E. (2017). "Apparently being a self-obsessed C**T is now academically lauded”: Experiencing twitter trolling of autoethnographers. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 18(3).
  2. Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as Method. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
  3. Denzin, N. K. (2003). Performing [Auto] Ethnography Politically. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 25(3), 257–278.
  4. Grant, A. (2010). Autoethnographic ethics and rewriting the fragmented self. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 17(2), 111–116.
  5. Holt, N. L. (2003). Representation, Legitimation, and Autoethnography: An Autoethnographic Writing Story. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(1), 18–28.
  6. Rich, G. J. (2017). The Promise of Qualitative Inquiry for Positive Psychology : Diversifying Methods. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 220–231.
  7. Sparkes, A. (2003). Bodies, Identities, Selves: Autoethographic Fragments and Reflections. In J. Denison & P. Markula (Eds.), Moving Writing: Crafting Movement in Sport and Research (pp. 51–76). New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
  • Please select up to 3 keywords from the following list to best describe your submission content: Complexity, Diversity and Inclusion, Meaning and Purpose
#IPPAWorldCongress