Rating  - Autoethnography as Method by Heewon V. Chang
As a PhD student of hospice nursing and using Autoethnography as a research methodology I welcome literature discussing this 'new ethnographic' approach. This book is one that is a valuable addition to my collection of references one I frequently access as the methodology chapter evolves.
Rating  - sound, but ultimately uninspiring
Heewon Chang has written a good overview of the current state of autoethnography, but has failed to add anything to it.
She starts with a broad outline of what culture is, and how the individual must always sit within culture. Then she examines the growing interest in self-narratives, and some ways these have been used in social sciences. In Chapter Three Chang narrows her focus down to autoethnography, and she uses Ellis & Bochner's (2000) extensive list of labels that have been applied to autoethnography. I found this chapter the most useful, as it discusses a number of researchers working in autoethnography (although Change explicity makes the case that she is not attempting a full literature review).
I think Chang's take on auto-ethnography is summed up by her statement that "mere self-exposure without profound cultural analysis and interpretation leaves this writing at the level of descriptive autobiography or memoir" (p. 51). Chang would reject Sela-Smith's (2002) autoethnographical approach as being too personal, and not analytical enough. Chang argues that autoethnography must always be brought back to the context of a wider cultural interpertation, and the strength of her point of view perhaps places her slightly askew from the positioning of Ellis and Bochner (whom she quotes extensively).
So far so good, but it was the remainder of the book which was the biggest let-down for me. Part two is about collecting ethnographic data, and part three is about turning data into autoethnography (this section includes information about coding and analyzing data from a traditional qualitative research p.o.v., which gives you an idea of the direction she is appraoching autoethnography from). Throughout Chang gives many data collecting and writing exercises, making this akin to an autoethnographic workbook. In the text, and in the appendices, Chang gives extensive examples of her own autoethnographic writing.
I admire Ruth Behar's work, and particularly her point that to write work that has the ability to resonate with other's experiences, one must be willing to be a "vulnerable observer" who is painfully open. Sela-Smith states that a heuristic self-search inquiry requires an autoethnographer who is "focussed on the I-who-feels and addresses the exeriencing self... as a way to access knoweldge that is significant to human experience". Unfortunately I found Chang the least vulnerable observer possible, and giving no sense of being in a self-dialog with an I-who-feels. She clearly has a fascinating life history, with relationships that cross many cultural boundaries. Sadly her autoethnographic writing gives no sense of what it would be like to experience this. By leaving out any sense of a lived life I am unable to draw wider culutral interpretations from them. I am unable to sense if my own cross-cultural experiences are similar to hers, as she doesn't self-disclose enough for me to gain a sense of any real experiences.
On pages 164 and 165 Chang gives an example of autoethnographic writing about her mother; such a potentially loaded and emotionally charged topic! Yet Chang's writing leaves me without any real understanding of what she experienced. She states "[my mother] juggled immense multiple roles in her life as a professor, church officer, mother, daughter-in-law, and friend. So her balancing act was a natural sight to my childhood eyes. I occasionally felt inconvenienced by her busy involvement in many different things and absences during the day and some evenings every week. My stay-at-home nurturing grandmother filled the void, which sufficiently satisfied my basic needs".
Now, is it just me, or does it seem to you that behind the phrase "sufficiently satisfied my basic needs" is a piece of real autoethnographical writing just jostling to get out? I imagine that in a Korean-American culture it must have involved some internal conflict trying to balance an intellectual and cultural understanding of the roles her mother needed to play, with Chang's own emotional needs and desires. I think that effective autoethnographic writing should have given an example of a specific time this caused internal (if not external) conflict, and how she felt about it. But then perhaps I am wrong; perhaps Chang never had any emotional qualms about her mother, and she truly did receive all the emotional attention she wished for; however from this writing I cannot tell. If she experienced nothing but feelings of happiness, care and fulfillment as a child then I would have liked to have read about them too.
In contrast Chang includes a marvellous piece of autoethnographic writing in Appendix F, by Jaime J. Romo, about his experience of identity development through school, college, and professional life. I found this writing painfully open, and very moving, and it gave me real insight into some of the cultural capital issues that are present in my own multi-cultural society.
Romo's writing highlighted the disappointment I experienced with the rest of Chang's book; a lack of the "rich details" which Chang herself argues are the essence of autoethnography. I can think of lots of reasons why Chang has not self-examined in her writings, however this lack means the book fell flat for me.
I had high hopes for this book, and I think there is definitely room for someone else to attempt this same overview of the field, bringing together all the strands from other researchers and adding their own stories. Until then I recommend researchers interested in this methodology stick with Ellis, Bochner, Behar, and Sela-Smith.
Go to the Product Information page
page 1 of 1
Customer Reviews for Left Coast Press, Inc.,1598741233,9781598741230,1598741233,305.8 |
