ABSTRACT
The author begins this chapter by introducing reflexivity as a way of challenging readers’ habitual, un-scrutinized styles of thinking about their lives and autoethnographic research, arguing that there should be no distinction between these two areas. He then unpacks the reflexivity concept, in a discussion of ethico-reflexivity, strong reflexivity and intersectional reflexivity. After taking issue with the philosophical and conceptual bases of reflexivity in its humanistic qualitative inquiry context and use, the author goes on to argue that incorporating posthumanist diffraction into reflexive sensibilities makes for better autoethnographic work. This entails a relative shift in onto-epistemological thinking and goals, in which the production of secure knowledge according to pre-determined categories merges with new, potentially more troubling, forms of being, knowing and knowledge production. In bringing the chapter to a close, the author discusses what for him are the key issues inhibiting the worthwhile practice of autoethnographic reflexivity-diffraction.
