“You’re Going to Do What?” Challenges of Autoethnography in the Academy

Qualitative Inquiry 1 –15© The Author(s) 2015Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1077800415574908qix.sagepub.com

Article

Maybe it was time to really do this. I knew I had to stop running. I spent the next couple of weeks gathering the pieces so that when I was ready, I could begin. I had my parents ship me some legal documents, I gathered old newspaper articles, and I started journaling again. In addi-tion to mentally preparing for the task ahead, I was left with a very practical question of how does one actually do this? What does it even look like? The very idea of this non-traditional approach meant that everything I had learned in “Dissertation Writing 101” was defenestrated. There are no rules and systematic chapters for this, and because of that, the path was scary.

Though, similarly, there are also no rules and systematic guidelines for how to sue your school district, the main story of my autoethnography. Maybe, as Ellis (2009) describes, this project would allow me to

Revisit my original representation, consider responses, and write an autoethnographic account . . . [with an opportunity] to alter the frame in which I wrote the original story, ask questions I didn’t ask then, consider others’ responses to the original story, and include vignettes of related experiences that have happened since I experienced and wrote the story and now affect the way I look back at the story. (Ellis, 2009, p. 13)

Finding My Voice

The reality is, simply writing an autoethnographic account is scary. The first challenge I faced was coming to terms

with exposing myself and embracing this methodology to its fullest and finding my voice. As Ellis describes, it is about making oneself vulnerable. It is exposing one’s strengths, weaknesses, innermost thoughts, and opening it up for others to criticize. It’s voluntarily standing up naked in front of your peers, colleagues, family, and the academy, which is a very bold decision! When I started down this path, I made a commitment to myself that I would finish writing knowing that I was true to myself and to not hide behind any façades through this process.

This project was far from what is considered tradi-tional and the approach was pieced together from what we do know from qualitative autoethnographic scholars such as Carolyn Ellis (1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2009), Arthur Bochner (1997, 2000), Norman Denzin (1989, 2000, 2003a, 2003b, 2006), Tamy Spry (2000, 2001, 2006, 2011), Sophie Tamas (2009, 2011), and Johnny Saldaña (1999, 2003, 2005, 2011) among others. The challenges of writing an autoethnography in the academy have been discussed by Sarah Wall (2008) and Dawn Johnston and her advisor Tom Strong (2008). The chal-lenges I faced add to their accounts by highlighting

574908QIXXXX10.1177/1077800415574908Qualitative InquiryForber-Prattresearch-article2015

1University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA

Corresponding Author:Anjali J. Forber-Pratt, University of Kansas, Beach Center on Disability, 1200 Sunnyside Ave., Lawrence, KS 66045. Email: [email protected]

“You’re Going to Do What?” Challenges of Autoethnography in the Academy

Anjali J. Forber-Pratt1

AbstractThis story presents three main challenges faced with creating an autoethnography as a dissertation at a prestigious university. These challenges include (a) finding the author’s voice, (b) negotiating university policies and procedures, and (c) addressing validity concerns for autoethnography. The resulting autoethnographic account captures vulnerable moments and incidents to produce an evocative story about becoming a pioneer. A fusion between social science and screenplay yields a compelling story where effects of reality and human experience come together. These struggles with university’s policies and creating a form of member-checking contribute to the field of “autoethnography” with regard to qualitative methodology. Embarking on the path less traveled while navigating the political system and bureaucracy gives hope to others seeking to publish and/or write their autoethnography.

Keywordsmethodologies, autoethnography, ethnographies, ethics, IRBs and academic freedoms, decolonizing the academy, pedagogy, disability studies

at University of Kansas Libraries on March 17, 2015qix.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://qix.sagepub.com/

2 Qualitative Inquiry

the specific challenges with university’s procedures and policies as well as creating an approach to address valid-ity concerns. Part of the beauty in being the creator is the freedom to illustrate my autoethnography and to also be an inventor.

Little by little, the idea was starting to take form. I was gaining more and more confidence in my non-traditional approach by engaging in conversations such as these. Although one perpetual problem was with every person I talked to, they had an idea on how I should do it. They would draw from their own experiences, such as writing chrono-logically or developing an elaborate coding system and pres-ent a compelling argument as to why I should approach it that way. I quickly realized the more people I talked to about the idea, the more confused I got about what I was actually trying to do.

Finding one’s voice refers to the possible articulations that can be given to any experience (Johnston & Strong, 2008) and capturing multiple outer and inner dialogues with key individuals throughout the process. These dialogues and rela-tionships reflected navigating the academic system itself, conversing with committee members as well as the life events being showcased. There were many other universities’ con-versations not captured here, some from fellow PhD students and close friends who I quickly learned were in disbelief of my approach. This became a double-edged sword of a chal-lenge—having to prove its worthiness for myself as well as acceptability to others—a challenge shared by other scholars too (Holt, 2003; Muncey, 2005; Wall, 2008).

“You’re going to do what?”

Ironically, the comments from non-academics I strug-gled with even more. These were the ones who no matter how much I tried to put it into perspective and explain the basics behind the methodology and the credibility of qualitative research, I would leave the conversation feel-ing like that deflated balloon, albeit for much different reasons.

“That’s such a copout.”

Autoethnography is not for the faint of heart. And nei-ther is dissertation writing, for that matter. But, when you embark on a journey into unchartered waters, it is far from being a copout. I learned to accept that and to keep my cards close. In a conversation with Dr. Norman Denzin, he shared that in his experiences too, not everybody will get what I am creating and the ways in which I am contribut-ing. From these conversations, I gained confidence to be the creator and to tell my story, my way. A key part in this process was finding my own voice merging the academic and the personal (Johnston & Strong, 2008). I finally sent

my advisor, Dr. Steven Aragon, an email a few days after these conversations with subject of “Sold!” I was finally ready to take this leap of faith.

Negotiating University Policies and Procedures

The second challenge of writing an autoethnography for my dissertation was negotiating university policies and procedures while selling the idea of autoethnography as a method. As part of an academic institution, there were some formalities and procedures that I was not exempt from. A primary task at hand was gaining approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is com-prised of a committee of individuals who approve, monitor, and review research involving human subjects to ensure ethics are upheld and regulations are followed—basically to ensure participants in social science research studies are treated fairly and that no physical or psychological harm is brought to them.

While Wall (2008) presented her challenges with gain-ing acceptance, legitimacy, and credibility for autoethnog-raphy as scholarly work and others have described the challenges of gaining IRB approval for non-conventional studies (Lincoln & Tierney, 2004), I was taken by Rambo’s (2007) autoethnographic account where she gained an acceptance for publication and then was subsequently blocked by her IRB. In her account, she explains her view-point that “my article is not an IRB concern because it is not research by their definition” (p. 357) and colleagues who claimed, “nor should it have gone to the IRB.” and that “you should have just done it and asked for forgive-ness later.” (p. 358). It is clear there is significant dissent on this issue in the academy.

As part of Denzin’s interpretive methods class, I had a feeling I might like to present or publish our final class project. Therefore, with some guidance from Denzin, it was decided I should secure IRB approval through the Institute of Communications Research housed within the College of Media because I was a student in his class. While the author recognizes the existence of college-level IRB offices may not be a common practice elsewhere, this was how this large research university was set up. Truthfully, we also discussed the realities of seeking IRB approval for a study like this. We talked in universities the methodology of autoethnography being non-traditional, less accepted by others, and that the gatekeeper at the College of Education (COE) IRB office, Alice,1 had a reputation for not always being open to alternative meth-ods that she does not fully grasp. We also discussed the iterative circle of revisions, and how if we did not play our cards right here, I could then be stuck in an infinite loop of revisions for the wrong reasons because of



Forber-Pratt 3

confusion over my methodology rather than warranted revisions. These factors weighed heavily into the decision to swiftly and seamlessly apply for approval through the College of Media first, knowing full well, I was likely going to be expected to duplicate my efforts and re-apply either within my own College or at the campus level. We felt that obtaining this initial level of approval by the College of Media Review Board would strengthen my case if others did choose to question it in the future. Even preparing the IRB form was a learning experience to describe on paper the justification and rationale behind a study such as this. Again, it was so different from any other IRB form I had ever done or examples from my

coursework and past research projects. It was a true les-son in research methods. I wondered: Do I have to pro-vide consent for me to study myself? I laughed because it made one of my previous IRB forms that I had struggled with look like a cakewalk, even though that was a study about children with disabilities, a vulnerable population! I was told, however, this was a formality and an important step along the way. I submitted the completed form and was approved within a short period of time. I was all set to finish revising my proposal and schedule my proposal defense, or so I thought.

Characters:AnjaliAdviser—StevenFlight AttendantDirector of Institutional Review Board (IRB)Assistant Director of IRBReceptionist

Scene 1:The scene begins on an airplane, Anjali’s home away from home. In the throes of living her life as a public speaker and role model for kids, she was on a trip to teach a wheelchair track clinic to kids while finalizing the scheduling of her dissertation proposal defense. The scene ends on Monday on campus in the office of the Director of the Institutional Review since they oversee the various independent college IRB offices across campus.

Production notes:Anjali is sitting in a window seat visibly on an airplane and we see the commotion of people gathering their belongings to prepare to deplane around her. From the moment the flight attendant authorizes the use of cell phones, we hear a chorus of cell phones turning on and message alerts. The text message conversation appears in italics and will appear as pop ups on the screen as the conversation unravels. If the thoughts are coming from within Anjali’s head, not spoken audibly, they appear in within quotation marks and in “italics.”

FLIGHT ATTENDANT

Ladies and gentleman, I’d like to be the first to welcome you to Richmond, VA, where the local time is 5:38 PM. We will be arriving at gate B5 and your checked baggage can be found on carousel number 3. At this time, you may now use your

cell phones but all other electronic devices must remain off until you are inside the terminal. Please remain seated with your seatbelts fastened until we have

arrived safely at the gate and the captain has turned off the fasten seatbelt sign.

ANJALI(Powers up phone and reads email.)

Shit.(Camera zooms in to see the text message Anjali is sending and in real-time we

see the following conversation unfold.)




To: Steven AragonMessage: We have a problem.

Response: What? Where are you? Did you land?Message: Yes, I just landed. The Department secretary, Betty,1 is asking if I got IRB

approval.Response: You did!

Message: Yeah, I wrote back and said I hand-delivered the letter to her. I watched Betty scan it and put it in my file!

Response: Okay, so what’s the problem?Message: Betty said that doesn’t count. She called Alice at the College IRB office

and they don’t have record of it, because it wasn’t from our College. Now what??Response: It’s the same form!

Message: No, there’s some Department form they are specifically looking for. I don’t think I can solve this problem from Virginia.

Response: Do you have a copy of the approval letter?Message: Yes, but not with me here. I guess since it’s past 5 PM there now, I’ll have

to deal with this on Monday, but we may not be able to do my dissertation proposal defense in a week . . .

Response: We’ll figure it out. Prob not till Monday though.Message: K

(Three days later: Monday morning on the phone.)

ANJALI

I don’t know what to do. I’ve been driving back and forth from my apartment to campus all morning trying to fix this problem. I brought the hardcopy of the

letter, and the Department told me it doesn’t count and that I should go talk to the College IRB Office. But I don’t want to do that, because that’s not where I got

approval from in the first place!

STEVEN

So just go in and meet with her and bring the letter! The truth of the matter is, you should consider just going over her head and go straight to campus as they oversee the various independent college IRB offices across campus.

Remember it’s like we’ve talked about before, I don’t think Alice will be open to this method; she wouldn’t fully understand it. I can see you getting railroaded

and have to go through multiple revisions, and she’ll likely give you a lot of grief over this. Even if you have to redo the IRB, it may be easier to get approval from

campus than the College.

ANJALI

I don’t know about that. Is there such thing as a reciprocal agreement across IRB offices?



Forber-Pratt 5

STEVEN

I don’t know! Campus would know. You could go talk to Denzin too.ANJALI

Well, I’m not going to the campus office until I feel more prepared here. I’ll figure something out. Why is this so hard? I hate hurdles.

(Driving home again.)“I wonder if Denzin is in his office this afternoon. That might be a good place to

start. I’ll check the campus IRB website too and grad college handbook. There’s no way I’m the first person to have this problem! New plan: print my old IRB form itself,

bring it and letter and email from Department and go see Denzin and figure out what to do.”

(Knocking on office door.)“Of course, of all days for him to not be here . . . great. I need a new plan again.Panic is not in the game plan! I wonder if campus IRB takes walk-ins? Guess I’m

about to find out! Where is the Campus IRB office? Better check my phone.”(Enters an unfamiliar building.)

RECEPTIONIST

How may I help you?

ANJALI

Hello, I’m not entirely sure. My name is Anjali Forber-Pratt, and I’m a PhD student in the College of Education and I have some questions regarding IRB

policies and procedures and how college-level IRB offices operate and if they are connected to each other or to this unit or not.

RECEPTIONIST

Okay, let me see if somebody can meet with you.DIRECTOR of CAMPUS IRB

So, I understand you just met with my assistant director and he thought it would be better for you to meet with me directly; what exactly is the issue?

ANJALI

Thank you for meeting with me. I want to conduct an autoethnography for my dissertation. I filled out an IRB exemption form with the ICR as part of the College

of Media, because I’m in a class there and registered for thesis hours under my instructor there. I got approval and this letter, but when I went to schedule my

dissertation proposal defense within my College, they said I had to go through their IRB office. I’m wondering if there is reciprocal agreement across college-

level IRB offices or not? I don’t want to have to go through the approval process again, because I’m trying to schedule my dissertation proposal defense for next

week.




DIRECTOR of CAMPUS IRB

Wow, after all my years here, it’s hard for me to believe it, but you are the first student to be in this situation. I’ve never been asked this question.

ANJALI

Well, I always do like to be different!

DIRECTOR of CAMPUS IRB(Laughs.) Do you have the initial form you filled out?

ANJALI

Yes, it’s just a copy though. It doesn’t have the original signatures. I can get them again if I need to, but my advisor is out of state, so it’s not quite as easy.


Well, I don’t think we’ll need the signatures, because you have the letter too?

ANJALI

Yes, it’s all right here.


Okay, let me take a quick look here. While I’m doing that, can you tell me a little more about your proposed study and how you plan on doing it?

ANJALI

Sure.

(Camera fades back in showing the passing of time.)


Based on what you just described, which by the way sounds very interesting, I would agree that you do not need to get human subjects approval for your study.

You have done the right thing by filling out the IRB Exemption form here. But, the predicament you find yourself in is tricky. There is no policy or precedent for the

independent IRB offices having reciprocal agreements. One would think they would acknowledge each other and recognize approvals from one as transferring to another as the federal government and our office certainly expects that, but,

as I said, to my knowledge you are the first to raise this question.

ANJALI

Okay . . .



Forber-Pratt 7


That said, why don’t we write a letter on your behalf from our office here stating that you came and met with me, explained the nature of your study and your

situation and that we grant you permission to proceed with your study.

ANJALI

Wow, that would be wonderful!

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR of CAMPUS IRB(He has been listening in from the doorway.)

Okay, so I’ll take these papers here and clock this in as a new IRB submission and read it over so that . . .


No. She needs this letter today. She’s been through enough and we’ve just heard all the justification we need to write the letter of support. Anjali, we’ll get you a

letter by the end of the day today. Okay?

ANJALI

Thank you so much, I really do appreciate your time.

What a win! Not just for me, but for all of the other aspir-ing autoethnographers on my campus! Essentially, I walked into Campus IRB and walked out with approval all in the same day. But what is bigger than that was getting their sup-port, from the campus level for this type of study. The cam-pus IRB office did act the way they were supposed to, but it would have been easy as a student to accept this railroading and to give up on this pursuit. It was an example of learning how to advocate in the academic arena, professionally—something I was new to.

The granting of this exemption is becoming more and more frequent by other universities. In fact, the National Research Council (2014) has proposed the creation of a new category, “excused,” of review at the federal level, which autoethnographies would fall under. The prospect of this category would systematize the precedents being set on a case-by-case basis at universities and colleges and raise the bar for other institutions to follow suit and recog-nized autoethnography as a valuable methodology to the academy.

It is my opinion that this move at the federal level would be even more of a win so these battles would not continue to occur department by department, or college by college;

however, with this move it is important to still preserve the academic nature of autoethnographies. That is to say, an exemption or excuse from IRB should not be misconstrued as devaluing autoethnographies as research. It becomes even more imperative for autoethnographers to explicitly outline their ethical vulnerabilities and processes to preserve the integrity of his or her story as research, as corroborated by Tullis (2014). The story, when brought to fruition and shown with the right level of detail and depth, interrogates in own right and that must not be forgotten as these changes are implemented.

Power and misuse of power is something I am not for-eign to. In fact, part of my hesitation to even delve into an autoethnography for my dissertation was the opening of pandora’s box and having to re-live the abuse of power I experienced going through high school. Running through campus and trying to look up College-level IRB policies and procedures I felt empowered because I had stood up for what I believed in before when it came to my education, it was like coming full circle for me as this project was about showing that story.




Characters:AnjaliNorman DenzinStudent—LaurenVoice

Scene 2:The scene begins in Denzin’s office; a small office space in an old University building that is floor to ceiling with books, papers and “organized chaos.”

Production notes:Anjali knocks on the wooden door at the start of the scene. As she enters, the camera spans up and down the wall showing the books, papers, and works in progress, and then centers on Denzin. If the thoughts are coming from within Anjali’s head, not spoken audibly, they appear in within quotation marks and in “italics.”

ANJALI

(Knocks on door.)

Hi, I just wanted to update you on my IRB saga, do you have a minute?

DENZIN

Absolutely! What happened?

(Camera fades out and back in to show passing of time.)

ANJALI

And so, I now have IRB approval, and will see you next week for my dissertation proposal defense after all!

DENZIN

Wow . . . (Pause.) This is just wonderful. This is huge. I don’t know if you realize how huge this is! Do you have a copy of the letter?

ANJALI

Yes, here it is. This is the only copy though, but I have it electronically.

DENZIN

Can you send it to me?

ANJALI

Of course!



Forber-Pratt 9

Document 1

Excerpt from Letter from Institutional RevStorytelling and the self in everyday life: Narrative inquiry on the cutting edgeiew Board, April 4, 2011:

“Thank you for submitting the completed IRB-1 Form for your project entitled: [Dream. Drive. Do.:] Becoming that ‘someone like me’. Your project was assigned Institutional Review Board (IRB) Protocol Number 11517 and reviewed. This application describes an auto-ethnography where the investigator will write down details of her life as it relates to being a role model within disability culture. The research will examine publicly available photographs, magazine articles, newspaper clippings, etc. that document her actions within the disability community. The research will also involve the investigator writing down her auto-ethnography (which is an autobiographical genre of writing) based on memories of her life, writing down critical incidents and connecting them to the existing political and social climate as it relates to disability and race. There is no systematic interaction or intervention with human subjects involved with this research.”

. . .

“It has been determined that this project as described does not meet the definition of human subjects research as defined in 45CFR46(d)(f) or at 21CFR56.102(c)(e) and does not require IRB approval.”

. . .

“Sincerely, XXXDirector, [Campus] Institutional Review Board”

DENZIN

GREAT letter. And a huge victory for our team, thanks to you and Steven!!!! Your experience and case sets precedent now for any other student.

So, you know I have to ask . . .

ANJALI

What’s that?

DENZIN

What does the College of Education think?

ANJALI

(Laughs.) Well, there’s a story there too.

DENZIN

I figured as much, just knowing who the key players are . . .




ANJALISo, after I got this letter from Campus, they said they were going to send it on to

the College as well to their IRB office. I was worried though, because what would happen if they just magically got this trump card of a letter from Campus without

a heads up? Right?

DENZIN

Mmhmm

ANJALI

I decided to take the high-road on this, so to speak, and to do the diplomatic and (gestures to make air quotes) “politically correct” thing by going to meet with

Alice from the College IRB Office to inform her that this letter would be coming and that I did not go through their office, (for reasons they can surmise on their own, but I was just keeping it short and sweet . . . ) and that now my paperwork

was complete and could they please rush the last paperwork so my dissertation proposal defense can take place on Wednesday.

So, I went in to their office, unannounced of course—I feel like I’m setting a trend here with this—anyway, I went in and very nicely informed them of this letter and

that it was coming from the Director of Campus IRB by close of business today and that I would appreciate their swift assistance with completing the remaining

paperwork. Of course, they were on the defensive right off the bat. They wanted to know why if I was a student in the College that I went over their head to

Campus. I ignored that question and just said, look, it is complicated, but here’s what happened and I’m simply here to inform you because I didn’t want you to

be surprised later on today.

DENZIN

And at this point, it doesn’t matter anyway! You would think they would realize that students doing this type of research are purposely not going through their office and that they need to get with the times! But good for you for not giving

up or just changing your topic/approach like so many do.

ANJALI

Thanks! I certainly hope this letter can help other students too—it was quite the ordeal. But, as you always say, gotta love pushing that envelope!

DENZIN

Ah, yes . . .

I know many established autoethnographers fight the red tape on their respective campuses; I know the qualitative researchers on my former campus struggle with the con-fines of these strict policies and procedures and forms that just don’t lend themselves to the type(s) of studies they are

seeking to pursue. This experience taught me about the ori-gins of the IRB and the epistemological beliefs at play. It takes persuasion and guts to push people to think outside of the box. Also, like Johnson (2008), I realized that my IRB experience was a part of something larger happening,



Forber-Pratt 11

systematically. Tullis (2014) explains that while doing an autoethnography may seem like a way to side-step the polit-ical bureaucracy, it may in fact open the door for more com-plex ethical dilemmas that may or may not go through scrutiny of IRB review. Johnson (2008) explains in her reflection conversations that took place with Yvonne Lincoln and the scrutiny that qualitative researchers are fac-ing when seeking IRB approval. Lincoln and Tierney (2004) explain the specific struggles that student dissertation work is up against, “dissertation work that is qualitative is under-going full-committee review; and at some institutions, qual-itative, phenomenological, critical theorist, feminist, action research, and participatory action research projects have been summarily rejected as “unscientific,” “ungeneraliz-able,” and/or inadequately theorized” (p. 222).

For me to find my voice as an autoethnographer was empowering in its own right similar to rising to the chal-lenges put forth by my universities policies and procedures. These two challenges were deeply intertwined, as one fueled the other. I would not have been able to navigate the hurdles of the IRB process had I not first found my voice as a writer.

Validity of Autoethnography

Fast-forwarding past these struggles to find my voice and create my methodology to my final defense, the last chal-lenge was about ensuring validity. This was one of the ques-tions that arose during my dissertation proposal defense, and was something I grappled with on how to situate auto-ethnography while upholding rigorous academic standards. Some believe that an autoethnographic story is valid in its own right, and that we need not be concerned with defend-ing its validity. However, in the academic world progressive qualitative research is constantly like being a square peg trying to fit in a round hole. Cho and Trent (2006) describe transactional validity “as an interactive process between the researcher, the researched, and the collected data that is aimed at achieving a relatively higher level of accuracy and consensus by means of revisiting facts, feelings, experi-ences, and values or beliefs collected and interpreted” (p. 321). This concept stayed with me as I started writing my autoethnography.

To create my autoethnography, I relied on existing doc-uments to assess everything and eventually decided on the lawsuit as being the main story and to move forward and backward in time using that as the anchor. I made an out-line and told the stories that needed to be told while con-necting to the literature through theoretical lens of cultural capital. I strove to answer the question of, what type of capital did I accrue based on those stories? The writing was subjective. Pathak (2010) shared four ethics to con-sider when engaging in autoethnographic writing. She writes about accountability, context, truthfulness, and community. With these ethical principals guiding my direction, I still felt that a form of member-checking was

needed to be able to articulate that what I was saying and presenting was legitimate, reliable, and valid. Therefore, I created my own process of member-checking to ensure validity building on the concept presented from Cho and Trent (2006). The questions I asked were (a) Does it make sense to me? (b) Does it make sense to someone who knows me really well? (c) Does it make sense to someone in my family? (d) Does it make sense to an academic (both in and outside of the social sciences)? (e) Does it make sense to a non-academic? (f) Does it make sense to some-one who does not know me well? Using these questions as a checklist, I worked with individuals from all of these categories to be sure that my autoethnographic account passed my member-checking test. This checklist, provided below, may serve as a helpful guide for others who are writing an autoethnography.

Reflection

Reflecting on this experience, the best analogy for what I learned from these three challenges was how to spread my wings and fly, as a researcher. I’ve learned how to advocate for myself in a different way—sure, I’ve always been a strong advocate for myself as a person with a disability, or a person of color, but to advocate for myself as a qualitative researcher was a new experience for me. All three of these challenges—finding my voice, navigating university poli-cies, and creating a form of member-checking—made me appreciate the scholars who have come before me. To essentially defend the qualitative research paradigm, the methodology of autoethnography, and its legitimacy to the Director and to my committee could have been quite scary and others may have walked away from the situation entirely, or just picked a new dissertation topic. But, that is not who I am. Taking this one step further to contributing to the field of qualitative research and being able to come up with a format for member-checking using autoethnography was a unique way to provide a contribution to the field.

It is one thing to read in a book or to discuss in class about the origins of the IRB and how it came about. Though, it is a much different experience when I found myself face-to-face with the head honcho and had to defend my study, purpose, and approach to obtain the golden ticket, or letter that would allow me to continue on down this uncharted path.

Prior to the 1900s, individual conscience and codes of conduct were used to govern research studies and guide ethi-cal decision making. The laws and customs of society and the government were used as the standard. As science and technology advanced, there were some grave failures such as studies performed on concentration camp prisoners who could not provide informed consent, or the infamous Tuskegee study. According to the Center on Disease Control, this was a project designed to study the history of syphilis in the hopes of better establishing treatment programs, but




participants being treated for “bad blood” actually did not receive proper treatment needed to cure their illness and it was later determined that while participants freely agreed to be examined, there was no evidence of informed consent or acknowledgment of the true purpose of the study (Center for Disease Control, 2011).

These examples prompted action by governments to institute rules to protect human subjects. From its incep-tion, the IRB and the foundation of university’s policies and culture have been laced with objectivity, facts, sci-ence, and testing of hypotheses. As the field of social sci-ence and qualitative research emerged, it became evident that it was challenging to fit this new research paradigm within the existing university structure as it was founded on opposite epistemological foundations. In addition, these epistemological foundations permeate the acad-emy—they permeate the journals we strive to publish in and the policies in place at universities. This experience reaffirmed my belief and identity that I am a post-modern-ist. To me, there is not a single, tangible reality; I see the world as being constructed based on multiple realities. Human knowledge is built through cognitive processes coupled with interactions with the world of material objects, Others, and the Self. To this token, it is my belief and assumption that our own experiences shape our per-ceptions. Using autoethnography, data about Self and con-text are used to gain an understanding of the connectivity between Self and Others including the surrounding culture(s) and historical climate. I recognized the need to justify my methodology choice to the Director of the IRB office, but I also exposed the challenges facing qualitative researchers on a campus known for supporting this type of work. This unleashed a new challenge as a young aca-demic that I now realize is one I will constantly be up against; opposing epistemological beliefs and founda-tions. Considering the larger context, I discovered a niche of being able to explain my approach for member-check-ing and creating my autoethnography was a contribution to the academy. This process, in my mind, is a way to jus-tify, a way to be a square peg fitting in a round hole—the round hole being the traditional beliefs and approaches from the hard science paradigm and the peg being a pro-gressive qualitative researcher. Creating what my approach was going to be in the writing and telling of my autoeth-nography is the last piece to reflect on.

As I mentioned, the more people I spoke to, the more confused I was getting with the approach. It occurred to me that I was talking to some of the wrong people. I needed to surround myself with methodology experts and to learn from them. At this point, I had read numerous autoethno-graphic accounts, and was engaged in philosophical discus-sions with members of my committee, but I still was struggling with the how.

Lucky for me, the International Qualitative Congress attracts key leaders in the field, and I had the opportunity to meet, greet, discuss, and learn from some amazing autoeth-nographers including Carolyn Ellis, Arthur Bochner, Tami Spry, and others. The funny thing about autoethnography is you read people’s accounts but rarely gain insight about understanding the process behind it and the trials and tribu-lations it took to get to that end result. Attending the Congress was an important step for me as I was creating my methods and applying my ingenuity. Attending the Congress allowed me to realize that while it is a dark and lonely path to embark on a journey such as this, there is an underground network of supporters, cheerleaders, and experts across many different disciplines who believed in me and what I was setting out to accomplish.

The greatest part about discovering this underground network was that the support did not end at the conclusion of the Congress. Honestly, when I attended the preconfer-ence workshop, Writing Autoethnography and Narrative in Qualitative Research with both Carolyn Ellis and Arthur Bochner, I naïvely thought I was going to come out of the 3-hour session knowing how to write my own autoethnography. Initially discouraged, and several emails later, I came to the realization that I was searching for a recipe that does not exist. The beauty of autoethnog-raphy is creating your approach yourself and finding your own voice. My quest for the holy grail of answers was over; I came out of the Congress finally knowing that the next step was simply to start writing and to not be overly concerned that I still felt like I did not know what I was doing.

“Just write.”

The researchers and individuals I met at the Congress kept reiterating these two words to me. Maybe they were on to something? I took another blind leap of faith and began writing. Initially, I had thought I was going to tell my story chronologically, but that approach quickly proved to be problematic for me because I felt it took away from high-lighting main events. My next approach was to take each element of my conceptual framework and tell different sto-ries from my life to illustrate how each piece connected to my life and identity development. When I started using this approach, however, it was too limiting. I felt like I was unable to fully develop the stories and everything felt disjointed.

Also at the Congress, there was something else that went beyond my increased confidence level and creation of my methods, but to realize in the sharing of my saga how I was making contributions to the field of academia.



Forber-Pratt 13

Continuation of Previous Scene:DENZIN

I’d like you to meet Anjali Forber-Pratt; she and her advisor took on the IRB and won and is now doing an autoethnography for her dissertation. I think you two have a lot to talk about. Anjali, this is Lauren; she is getting railroaded by her college and folks are trying to dissuade her from doing an autoethnography.

ANJALI

(Sheepishly.) Hi. I guess that’s me! I would be happy to talk more with you about my experiences. It’s nice now to be on the other side, and I’d love to help you out

in any way that I can.

STUDENT—LAUREN

Thank you! I’m just so discouraged. People are telling me it’s impossible to do this type of research, and that I certainly cannot do it for my dissertation, and . . .

ANJALI

I’m exhibit “A.” I am doing it. Here, on this campus. So, that said, you can too. You need allies, that’s for sure.

(Camera pans out. Refocuses as Anjali enters a new room.)

VOICEHey, aren’t you? I hear that you had IRB issues with your autoethnography?

Throughout the process of, “just writing,” I discovered my voice and it happened to take on the format of a movie script. I have always been a visual person and thinker, and as I was writing and trying to capture the emotions and essence of particular moments, I could see the movie in my head. Using this format, I was able to uniquely intersect the power of dialogue with rich visual imagery and cinematic techniques. The format I created, through applied ingenuity, is one of specific movie scenes that appear throughout the text. As you’ve now seen, the specific scenes appear in a different font with a scene description, production notes, character description(s), and the ensuing dialogue or visual representation that appears on the screen during this scene. The scenes themselves contain and serve as a catalyst for important moral and ethical conversations. Following the presentation of the scene(s), a section of critical reflection is provided connected to the theoretical underpinnings.

While the saga itself of obtaining IRB approval and devel-oping my own “how-to” was trying and challenging, I learned a lot along the way. I had the opportunity to navigate the political system of the University and associated departments and/or divisions in a different way. The vulnerability exposed

in the IRB process was the lack of reciprocal agreement across college-level IRB offices and that of campus level. The system was not set up to allow for a student such as myself to be allowed to do an autoethnography within the COE. I exposed the vulnerability of these inconsistencies, and this led to challenging deeply held values and beliefs developed through our communities, political, educational, and other societal structures (Denzin, 2006; Spry, 2011).

Throughout this experience, I learned the importance of coming into your own as a researcher and methodologist. I learned that in the academy we will always be pushed and challenged to justify our methods and reasons for designing a study in such a way. I learned that the process of just writ-ing and finding my voice could fuel this drive to excel aca-demically. In turn, my experience was proving to be helpful for other students—helping other students become “some-one like me” which was the purpose of my dissertation. This challenge uncovered another deeper layer of this meta-phor allowing me to grow as a scholar.

I engaged with leading scholars in the field of qualitative research and reaffirmed my own epistemological beliefs. I am proud that together—my advisor, committee, and I helped pave




the way. We did it; we exposed additional challenges of com-pleting an autoethnography in the academy, yet presented solu-tions that will continue to be used by others in years to come.

Does It Make Sense to Me?

This was an iterative process of reading, re-reading, revis-ing, and critically asking myself if anything was missing. Many autoethnographers thrive in the creative space where we can re-write our histories, we can change the outcomes with our words, we can imagine new scenarios or re-look at critical incidents in our lives with a different lens today than we may have had years ago.

Does It Make Sense to Someone Who Knows Me Really Well?

I identified the people in my life who can finish my sen-tences. These are the individuals who you cannot lie to, they know you so well that they understand your non-verbal cues even if you are communicating via text message. They are the people who you let into your close intimate space and you share every detail—the good, the bad, and the ugly—with. I asked these individuals to read pieces or sections and say, does this make sense to you? Do you think I am being true to who I am and true to my story? The feedback from these individuals was crucial because in some cases, the flow from one scene to the next made sense in my head because I had lived it. They would tell me, “I know how you got from point A to point B, but people who do not know you would not have known about this other important piece, and therefore you should add that in to make the link stron-ger.” These were the individuals who understand how my brain works, but could also call out my shortcomings and help me to identify gaps in my retelling of my story.

Does It Make Sense to Someone in My Family?

My family was there through my high school battle. I wanted to ensure that my retelling made sense to them. As a teenager without a fully developed brain yet, there were certain pieces that I recounted slightly differently from my mother. I appreciated the dialogues we had about my depo-sition experience because there were some details that I had blocked out, likely as a method of coping with the stress. I relied on my mother and my brother to be my sounding board for this process.

Does It Make Sense to an Academic?

I needed to blend together the research with my reflective and creative writing. It was imperative to make sure that the ties to theory and research were present throughout my work. I made sure to present sections to both qualitative

academics from my own field and quantitative researchers outside of my field from both junior and senior levels. The feedback from a fellow junior colleague in mathematics was helpful, because it made sense to her, but still was rig-orous enough and logical, I felt good about what I had written.

Does It Make Sense to a Non-Academic?

In some cases, a non-academic was someone who knew me well, or from my family, but this was somebody who I labeled as coming from the mainstream. The purpose here was to have somebody who does not spend their days read-ing and writing academic articles to read it and make sure it made sense to them and was engaging.

Does It Make Sense to Someone Who Does Not Know Me Very Well?

This was for the average person off the street—does it engage other readers who are unfamiliar with my story, who I am, but who may have a broad interest in minorities or education.

Creating this member-checking checklist was one of the contributions this piece makes to the academy. It was a dif-ficult piece for me to think through, because at first I felt hurt that I had to justify my own story. However, the more I read from other scholars, the more I realized that to function in the academy, we must strike a balance to be taken seri-ously as qualitative researchers. The extraordinary research-ers who have come before me have paved an excellent path, and this was one contribution I could make for other aspir-ing students who want to become that “someone like me.”

This was indeed a victory, not just for me but also for others who will come along. This is an exciting time for autoethnographers; a time to embrace the potential changes at the federal level, but to also not forget the long arduous path from which we have come. Even if autoethnographies are to fall under an excused category from IRB at the fed-eral level, we must band together to remember the burning desire to take action, the raw and visceral response we feel when reading an autoethnography that hits our own inner core causing us to draw parallels to our own life, critically reflect and take action. There are more victories to come for autoethnographers.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Steven R. Aragon, for his thought-ful feedback and guidance during the preparation of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.



Forber-Pratt 15

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

1. This is a pseudonym.

References

Bochner, A. (1997). It’s about time: Narrative and the divided self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 418-438. doi:10.1177/107780049700300404

Bochner, A. (2000). Criteria against ourselves. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 266-272. doi:10.1177/107780040000600209

Center for Disease Control. (2011). The Tuskegee timeline. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm

Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revis-ited. Qualitative Research, 6, 319-340.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive biography. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Denzin, N. K. (2000). Aesthetics and qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 256-265. doi:10.1177/107780040000600208

Denzin, N. K. (2003a). The call to performance. Symbolic Interaction, 26, 187-207. doi:10.1525/si.2003.26.1.187

Denzin, N. K. (2003b). Performing [auto]ethnography politically. Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 25, 257-278. doi:10.1080/10714410390225894

Denzin, N. K. (2006). Analytic autoethnography, or déjà vu all over again. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 419-428. doi:10.1177/0891241606286985

Ellis, C. (1999). He(art)ful autoethnography. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 653-667. doi:10.1177/104973299129122153

Ellis, C. (2000). Creating criteria: An ethnographic short story. Quali- tative Inquiry, 6, 273-277. doi:10.1177/107780040000600210

Ellis, C. (2002). Being real: Moving inward toward social change. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 399-406. doi:10.1080/09518390210145453

Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Ellis, C. (2009). Revision: Autoethnographic reflections on life and work. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Holt, N. L. (2003). Representation, legitimation, and autoeth-nography: An autoethnographic writing story. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(1), 18-28.

Johnson, T. S. (2008). Qualitative research in question a narrative of disciplinary power with/in the IRB. Qualitative Inquiry, 14, 212-232.

Johnston, D., & Strong, T. (2008). Reconciling voices in writing an autoethnographic thesis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(3), 47-61.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Tierney, W. G. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 219-234.

Muncey, T. (2005). Doing autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(1), 69-86.

National Research Council. (2014). Proposed revisions to the com-mon rule for the protection of human subjects in the behavioral and social sciences (Committee on Revisions to the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Board on Behavioral,

Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Pathak, A. A. (2010). Opening my voice, claiming my space: Theorizing the possibilities of postcolonial approaches to auto-ethnography. Journal of Research Practice, 6(1), Article-M10.

Rambo, C. (2007). Handing IRB an unloaded gun. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 353-367.

Saldaña, J. (1999). Playwriting with data: Ethnographic perfor-mance texts. Youth Theater Journal, 13, 60-71. doi:10.1080/08929092.1999.10012508

Saldaña, J. (2003). Dramatizing data: A primer. Qualitative Inquiry, 9, 218-236. doi:10.1177/1077800402250932

Saldaña, J. (2005). Ethnodrama: An anthology of reality theatre. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Saldaña, J. (2011). Ethnotheater: Research from page to stage. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Spry, T. (2000). Tattoo stories: A postscript to skins. Text and Performance Quarterly, 20(1), 84-96. doi:10.1080/10462930009366285

Spry, T. (2001). Performing autoethnography: An embodied methodological praxis. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 706-732. doi:10.1177/107780040100700605

Spry, T. (2006). A “performative-I” copresence: Embodying the ethnographic turn in performance and the performative turn in ethnography. Text and Performance Quarterly, 26, 339-346. doi:10.1080/10462930600828790

Spry, T. (2011). Body/paper/stage: Writing and performing auto-ethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Tamas, S. (2009). Writing and righting trauma: Troubling the autoethnographic voice. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), Article 22. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901220

Tamas, S. (2011). Life after leaving: The remains of spousal abuse. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Tullis, J. A. (2014). Self and others. In S. Holman-Jones, T. E. Adams, & C. Ellis (Eds.), The Handbook of autoethnography (pp. 244-259). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Wall, S. (2008). Easier said than done: Writing an autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(1), 38-53.

Author Biography

Anjali J. Forber-Pratt, PhD, is an assistant research professor at the University of Kansas affiliated with the Beach Center on Disability. She earned her doctorate in the field of human resource development from the Department of Education, Policy, Organization, and Leadership at the University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign. Her research interests focus on individuals who struggle to succeed due, in part, to some difference that has labeled them outside the main-stream. Those differences include, and are not limited to, disability, race, gender, and sexual orientation. Her work cuts across education (elementary, secondary, post-secondary), sports, work, and quality of life contexts. She is passionate about helping to transform percep-tions of what it means to be different, helping others accept their own differences, and motivating others to take action in their own lives and communities. In line with her goal of giving voice to those who fall through the cracks of education and society, she has become spe-cialized in qualitative methodology.



Documents

“You’re Going to Do What?” Challenges of Autoethnography in the Academy