- Analysing Experience: Issues
The shift to gathering and analysing my own experience, raised a number of questions about ‘validity’, quality and criteria – What makes this type of research good? Am I just making stuff up? etc. Reading about Autoethnography has helped develop my thinking, even though I have not created a full autoethnographic narrative.
‘Autoethnographers must not only use their methodological tools and research literature to analyze experience, but also must consider ways others may experience similar epiphanies; they must use personal experience to illustrate facets of cultural and experience.’
(Ellis, Adams, Bochner, 2011)
_________________________________________________________
In particular the discussion of the shift in context, meaning and utility of terms like reliability, validity and generalizability when applied to autoethnography. (Ellis, Adams, Bochner, 2011)
Discussion around reliability focuses on whether the narrator could have had the experiences described. Bochner talks about whether the teller believes it has happened to her or him (2002, p.86 cited in Ellis, Adams, Bochner, 2011) Also, whether literary license been taken so far that what is being presented is not truthful. (Ellis, Adams, Bochner, 2011)
Validity becomes about creating a feeling that what has been represented could be true. Plummer talks about being able to enter the world of the teller even if this does not ‘match reality’ (2001, p.401 cited in Ellis, Adams, Bochner, 2011) Important evaluative questions relate to the use of the story. (Bochner, 2002)
Generalizability is focused around the reader and is about whether the story speaks to them or to the experience of people they know (Ellis & Bochner, 2000; Ellia & Ellingson, 2000, cited in Ellis, Adams, Bochner, 2011)
My use of experience meets these criteria. However, I need to be aware of the importance of translating my findings into a plan for changing practice. It is not just a practical step but a vital ideological step. This is also in line with action research where:
‘You can’t prove anything. The word ‘prove’ does not exist in action research. You can however produce reasonable evidence to suggest that what you feel happened really did happen, and you are not just making it up.’ (McNiff, 2022)
____________________________________________________________
Another issue surrounds subjectivity and bias. Autoethnography ‘acknowledges and accommodates subjectivity, emotionality, and the researcher’s influence on research, rather than hiding from these matters or assuming they don’t exist’ (Ellis, Adams, Bochner, 2011) Bochner also talks about it being ‘self-consciously value-centered rather than pretending to be value-free. (1994, cited in Ellis, Adams, Bochner, 2011)
So, subjectivity and bias being present is not a problem however the key words here are ‘acknowledges’, ‘accommodates’ and ‘self-consciously’. I have to ask myself how I am doing this. My reflexivity statement is key in helping me become conscious of my bias. The language I use to talk about my findings is key in acknowledging that it is my story and my interpretation. Finally, I will need to carry the discussion of values through into how I change my practice.
- Analysing Visuo-textual Data
I’d initially considered different analytical lenses that could be applied to my data:
| Practical/Physical Day Time Physical Arrangement Size of Meeting | Formality Formal Informal |
| Subject Meetings on the same subject | Extremity Most Positive Most Challenging |
But the most important entry point was this:
| What meeting images look the same and why? |
This led me back into text description, reading and consideration of other details.
The framework provided by Brown and Collins (2021) was useful. It describes an ‘iterative sense-making process to generate common threads’ (Brown and Collins, 2021, p.1276) made up of 2 levels – ‘Level 1…Noticing and Describing’ and ‘Level 2…Conceptualising’ (Brown and Collins, 2021, p.1281) where you weave backwards and forwards through both types of material.
- Analysing Visual Material – Issues
Brown and Collins (2021) highlight the fact that there is a lack of information around the direct use of visual material as data to be analysed. However, there are researchers that believe as I do that ‘visual artefacts are more than conversation starters, they are the conversations in and of themselves’ (Brown and Collins, 2021, p.1277) and ‘powerful expressions in and of themselves’ (Chapman et al.,2017, p.810 cited in Brown and Collins, 2021, p.1279)
Brown and Collins also gave me an idea of potential working issues. They talk about the dangerous ‘notion of the visual as capturing reality that underpins some approaches to visual methodology’ (Brown and Collins, 2021, p.1280) and the way that ‘seemingly intangible visual images, when classified as data, risk being calcified in to static objects, frozen in time’ (Brown and Collins, 2021, p.1280) This made me keep my interpretation of the images fluid.