Quotes from reading on the topic
“A form of self-narrative that places the self within a social context […] Autoethnographies compare the experiences of the author with those of other people” (Reed-Danahay, 1997)
“a qualitative research method which utilizes ethnographic methods to bring cultural interpretations to the autobiographical data of researchers with the intent of understanding self and its connection with others” (Chang, 2008)
“Autoethnography is an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyze personal experience in order to understand cultural experience […] Thus, as a method, autoethnography is both process and product” (Ellis and Bochner, 2010)
“while reflexivity – in the sense of thinking through the implications of the researcher’s person on the study – is important in all qualitative research designs […], in autoethnography, the interaction between the researcher’s multiple identities as a researcher and as a member of a social world constitutes a major part of the ‘observations’ that are then analyzed” (Hokkanen 2017, p. 26)
“self-reflection can lead to self-transformation through self-understanding” (Chang 2008, pp.57)
Self reflection
I carried out a quick version of auto ethnography, writing a brief reflective account of my own memories around the institutional bias of UAL’s collections. In this I wanted to play and experiment with this method, through a critical and questioning reflection on my experiences, and applying these to social/cultural contexts. In this way my approach could be categorised as “Confessional/self-critical” (Chang 2008, p. 39).
I have never been openly, actively challenged by students about the hegemony of the collections we hold or the objects that we have.
Am I not inviting this? What can I do to invite this? Do students not see the archive as a space that they expect to be represented in, and so don’t question this? How can I surface and change those expectations?
But sometimes students’ responses inadvertently (?) challenge me. A course of students is divided into groups; one group has predominantly Chinese members. This group chooses the only artefact in the collection that is of obvious Chinese origin (DU_121). They share the cultural meanings of this object in their project, and are excited to talk about this with tutors and their classmates. Their European classmates had hundreds of items that were culturally familiar to them, that they could have shared in this way. I was ashamed they did not have this choice.
How can we equalise this experience? How can there be an equity or parity for students when using our collections no matter their cultural background, considering the overwhelmingly legacy of material made by white, western, cis male creators? These students’ knowledge gave me insight into the item, which I can share with others when using this in the future – I need to remember to acknowledge them when I do, how do I do this?
My colleagues at UAL have challenged me. When I assumed that taking material related to their work within the university into the archive would be welcomed, they challenged me. They were not open, they were not grateful. They asked why. This forced me to evaluate my assumption that they would see it as an achievement – that to receive this attention was validating, to be seen as ‘worthy’ of preserving was flattering. Through these conversations I learnt that any relationship needed to be a partnership; that I should offer my skills to them on their own terms, so they could be in control of their narrative. Any knowledge we have should not be withheld from them unless they agreed to our terms.
How should I be approaching new acquisitions to our collections? How can these be partnerships with the creators? How can we move away from traditional archival ideas of ‘ownership’ to those of cocreation? My skills and experience have value, but this needs to be shared. How can I share these in my role?
References
Chang, H. (2008) Autoethnography as Method. California: Left Coast Press
Ellis, C. and Bochner, A. (2006) ‘Analyzing Analytic Autoethnography: An Autopsy’ Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35:4, pp. 429-449
Ellis, C. and Bochner, A. (2010) ‘Autoethnography: An Overview’, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12:1. Available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1101108
Hokkanen, S. (2017) ‘Analyzing personal embodied experiences: Autoethnography, feelings, and fieldwork’, Translation & Interpreting, 9:1, pp.24-35
Muncey, T. (2010) Creating Autoethnographies. London: Sage Publishers Ltd.
Reed-Danahay (1997) Auto/Ethnography: Rewriting the Self and the Social, Oxford: Berg.
Wall, S. (2006) ‘An Autoethnography on Learning About Autoethnography’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5:2, pp.146-160
Wall, S. (2008) ‘Easier Said than Done: Writing an Autoethnography’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7:1, pp. 38-53