ABSTRACT
It seems to me that autoethnography usually exists in a space apart from funded research and commissioned evaluations. It sometimes feels like a parallel universe exists: Funded, commissioned studies are conducted over there, while autoethnographies are conducted over here. But must that be the case? More to the point, perhaps, should that be the case? Might something be gained from blurring or diminishing this separation? I would like to see a greater degree of overlap because autoethnography can make an important contribution to studies that utilise other methodologies. In the process of researching others’ lives – whether through questionnaires, interviews, observation or any other methods – researchers inevitably influence, shape or construct findings and interpretations (Etherington, 2004). Their biographies, politics, cultural positioning and experiences while doing the research, therefore, matter – they potentially impact the study’s outcomes. Because autoethnography facilitates critical exploration of a researcher’s experiences within a culture, a political context, I’d like to see it considered a routine and necessary component of commissioned social research and evaluation.
