Autoethnography TONY E. ADAMS Northeastern Minos Universiy, USA CAROLYN ELLIS University of South Ford, USA STACY HOLMAN JONES ‘Monash University, Australia Autoethnography is a research method that uses personal experience (“auto”) to describe and interpret ("graphy") cultural texts, experiences, beliefs, and practices ethno"), Autoethnographers believe that personal experience is infused with political/cultural norms and expectations, and they engage in rigorous self- reflection—typically referred to as “reflexivity’—in order to identify and interrogate the intersections between the self and social life. Fundamentally, autoethnographers aim to show “people in the process of figuring out what to do, how to live, and the ‘meaning of their struggles” (Bochner & Ellis, 2006, p. 111) Here we offer a brief history of autoethnography, particularly within the communi- cation discipline, We then describe key characteristics of autoethnography and iden- tify the purposes of doing autoethnographic researc, We conclude by providing three examples of the ways we approach doing and writing autocthnography. Abi f history of autoethnography “The term “autoethnography” first formally appeated in the 1970s, Heider (1975) used “auto-ethnography” to describe the practice of cultural members giving an account of the culture, Goldschmidt (1977) called all ethnography “self-ethnography” in that ethnographic representations privilege personal beliefs, perspectives, and observations (p. 294). Hayano (1979) referred to “auto-ethnography” to describe researchers who “conduct and write ethnographies of their ‘own people” (p. 99). Even though these authors distinguished between cultural insiders and outsiders as well as identified ways in which a researcher's perspective can inform the research process and product, none of them explicitly foregrounded the inclusion and importance of personal experience in research. Although few scholars explicitly used the word “autoethnography” in the 1980s, many researchers, especially qualitative, interpretive social scientists, continued to ‘write about the importance of storytelling and personal narrative, identified the limi tations of traditional research practices, and illustrated how a researcher's perspective ‘The International Encylopedia of Communication Research Methods, Yrg Mattes (General Eto), Christine S. Davis and Robert F Potter (Associate Editors) © 2017 John Wiley & Sons nc Peblished 2017 by Ton Wiley & Son, ne. OK 10 1002/9781114901731sermoo112 AuTOETHNOGRAPHY informs and facilitates research processes, products, and the creation of culture (see Bochner, 2014). Ethnographers, in particular, could no longer hide behind or try to perpetuate an aura of objectivity and innocence; any attempt to do so signified at best a lack of awareness and at worst an abuse of research “subjects,” as many of the ethnographer’s observations came to suggest more about the ethnographer and the ethhnographer’s agenda than about the cultural “others” being studied. In the 1990s, “autoethnography” became a method of choice for using personal experience and reflexivity to examine cultural experiences, especially within com- ‘munication. Key texts include Carolyn Ellis’s Investigating Subjectivity (coedited with ‘Michael Flaherty, 1992), Final Negotiations (1995), The Ethnographic T (2004), and Revision (2009), and Art Bochner’s Coming to Narrative (2014). Ellis and Bochner also coedited Composing Ethnography (1996) and Ethnographically Speaking (2002), and they coauthored the most cited essay about autoethnography, “Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject” (2000). (As of January 2017, this essay has been cited nearly 4,000 times.) Ellis and Bochner also edited two book series—Ethnographic Alternatives (AltaMira Press) and Writing Lives (Left Coast Press)—each of which included books with autoethnographic features authored by numerous communication scholars, including Tony Adams, Anna Banks, Stephen Banks, Robin Boylorn, Rob Drew, Tom Frentz, Bud Goodall, Stacy Holman Jones, Lesa Lockford, Annette Markham, Kristine Muiioz, Mark Orbe, Ron Pelias, Chris Poulos, Janice Rushing, Lisa Tillmann, and Nick ‘Trujillo. The three of us (Stacy, Tony, and Carolyn) edited the Handbook of Autoethnography (2013) and published a textbook entitled Auloethnography (2015). Derek Bolen, another communication scholar, organized the annual Doing Autoethnography conference, an event now entering its sixth year, and Stacy Holman Jones and Anne Harris organize the annual Critical Autoethnography conference in Melbourne, Australia. Other key communication scholars relevant to, or who frequently use, autoethnography include (among others) Keith Berry, Devika Chawla, Dwight Conquergood, Aisha Durham, Craig Gingrich- Philbrook, Rachel Griffin, and Tami Spry. Many of these communication scholars (and others) attend the International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, now in its thirteenth year and hosted by Distinguished Professor of Communications, Norman Denzin, ‘The Congress always has promoted autoethnography; more than 100 presentations on autoethnography were scheduled at the 2016 conference. Doing auto/ethnography ‘Understanding autoethnography requires working at the intersection of autobiography and ethnography. When we do autobiography—or write about the self—we often call on memory and hindsight to reflect on past experiences; talk with others about the past; examine texts such as photographs, personal journals, and recordings; and may even consult with relevant news stories, blogs, and other archives related to life events (cg, Goodall, 2006). Then we write these experiences to assemble a text that uses tenets of storytelling devices, such as narrative voice, character development, and dramatic tension, to create evocative and specific representations of the culture/culturalAUTOETHNOGRAPHY 3 experience and to give audiences a sense of how being there in the experience feels (eg. Ellis, 2004) When we do ethnography, we observe, participate in, and write about a culture and/or a cultural experience (e.g., body image, dating, parenthood, depression, care- taking, death). We enter the cultural “field” for an extended amount of time, take “field notes” about our participation, and interview cultural members (“insiders”) about their experiences, thoughts, and feelings. Typically, ethnographers approach cultural communities inductively, allowing observations to guide what they write, that is, their “findings.” Then they consult with, and often connect their findings to more formal research about their experiences, One aim of ethnography is to create a representation of cultural practices that makes these practices familiar for cultural “outsiders.” This is accomplished through the use of thick, vivid, and concrete description, which offers readers a sense of being there in the experience. Taken together, the process, principles, and practices of autobiography and ethnog raphy contribute to the way we write and practice autoethnography, as well as the goals and purposes we have for autoethnographic work. Purposes and practices of autoethnography If we want to do autoethnographic research, we must have a sense of the core ideals of autoethnographic methods and how autoethnogeaphers accomplish these ideals. We must also know why researchers use autoethnographic methods. In this section, we describe the purposes and practices of autoethnography and discuss why we chose to do and write autoethnography. First, given the focus on personal experience, autoethnographers speak against, or provide alternatives to, dominant, taken-for-granted, and harmful cultural scripts, stories, and stereotypes (eg., Boylorn, 2014). Autoethnographers offer accounts of personal experience to complement, or fill gaps in, existing research. These accounts may show how the desire for, and practice of, generalization in research can mask important auances of cultural issues, such as eating disorders (Tillman, 2009), depression (Jago, 2002), social class and appearance (Hodges, 2014), and norms of masculinity, desire, and the body (Berry, 2007) A second purpose of autoethnography is to articulate insider knowledge of cultural experience. This assumption suggests that the writer can inform readers about aspects of cultural life that other researchers may notbe able to know. A person who has directly experienced institutional oppressions and/or cultural problems, such as racism, loss, or illness, can talk about these issues in ways different from others who have limited expe- riences with these topics. Insider knowledge does not suggest that an autoethnographer can articulate more truthful or more accurate knowledge as compared to outsiders, but rather that as authors we can tell our stories in novel ways when compared to how others ay be able to tell them, Historically, ethnographers traveled into unfamiliar cultural settings (the field), established rapport with cultural members, and made observations about the culture (conducted fieldwork), and then left the culture and frequently never returned. Back4 AuTOETHNOGRAPHY home, they wrote a representation of the people they studied in an effort to make the culture familiar for unfamiliar audiences. Often, cultural members did not have access to the representation, and were not informed of what the ethnographer wrote and said. Conversely, given the ethnographer’ distance from the culture, she or he (typically “he") did not have much investment in the politics of the representation, specifically how readers of the account could use the representation against the culture and its members However, many autocthnographers—especially those who hold critical, feminist, queer, and postcolonial positionings and commitments—critique these ethnographic practices. As Smith (1999) observes, social research is “not an innocent or distant academic exercise but an activity that has something at stake and that occurs ina set of political and social conditions” (p. 5). As such, the third purpose of autoethnography is to show how researchers are implicated by their observations and conclusions and to encourage autoethnographers to write against harmful ethnographic accounts made by others—especially cultural “outsiders” —who try to take advantage of, or irresponsibly regulate, other cultures (e.g, Crawford, 1996). Borrowing the words of Blair, Brown, and Baxter (1994), autoethnographic texts often closely align with feminist principles by revealing the ways in which these stories are produced; discussing the author’ motivations for, and emotions in, writing; legitimizing “experiential and narrative ‘evidence” (p. 385); and claiming a “transformative or interventionist political stance” (p. 386; see also Holman Jones, 2005). Given the focus on personal experience, autocthniographers also describe moments of everyday experience that cannot be captured through more traditional research methods. Doing autoethnographic fieldwork allows what we see, hea, think, and feel to become part of the “field.” Autoethnographers can write about experiences that happen in pri vate contexts, such as the bedroom or bathroom, or everyday interactions when others ‘make offensive comments, or internal feelings of dissonance or confusion. For example, hhow might we study racist comments in everyday settings? It is impractical to create such a study in a laboratory setting where our purposes would not be disclosed. We could interview others about racist remarks they hear or make, but these others may not remember or admit to making these statements nor recognize or define their remarks as racist. However, the use of personal experience permits autoethnographers to describe and record the ways in which racism is experienced in the most mundane of settings, such as while shopping at a grocery store or teaching in a college classroom (eg., Boy orn, 2011), or in everyday conversations with neighbors (c.g. Elli, 2009). A final goal of autoethnography isto create texts that are accesible to larger audiences, primarily audiences outside of academic settings. For example, communication scholar Robin Boylorn creates accessible autocthnographic texts for a wide audience through her contributions to the Crunk Feminist Collective, an online blogging site whose Face book page has more than 34,000 members (Cooper, Morris, & Boylorn, 2017), She aso recently published an essay in an international news source (Boylorn, 2015), informed byher experience as a Black woman, that uses existing research to describe and critique cultural uses oflanguage, particularly Black and White uses of the term “bae” to describe a relational partner. As of January 2017, Boylornis essay has more than 2,000 “shares” via social media sites and more than 1,000 comments, We believe that the accessibilityAUTOETHNOGRAPHY 5 of autoethnography makes such attention possible; it is a method researchers can use to engage both academic and nonacademic audiences, Examples of doing and writing auteethnography In this section, we offer three examples—one from each of us—deseribing how we approach doing and writing autoethnography. We then discuss how these examples are representative of our approaches to the form. We also suggest questions, goals, and ethical concerns we take up in our autoethnographic work. Carolyn “Much of my recent work has focused on stories told by Holocaust survivors. In particu- lar, Thave worked with survivor Jerry Rawicki for seven years. After doing a traditional oral history interview, he and I began to engage in compassionate interviewing and storytelling (Ellis & Rawicki, 2013; Ellis & Patti, 2014; Patti, 2013), which encompass the goals and values of autoethnography. In compassionate interviewing, researchers and participants listen deeply to, speak responsibly with, feel passionately for, share vu nerably with, and connect relationally and ethically to each other with care. In compas- sionate storytelling, researchers—sometimes with participants—write and tell stories empathetically and respectfully, accompanied by a desire to relieve or prevent suffering With Jerry, [have integrated my roles of friend and researcher so that they blend and complement each other rather than conflict, Foremost in my mind is a consideration of our relationship, one focused on Jerry's well-being and the possibility of renewal and purpose in his life (and mine). I can do the research I do, which involves emotional sharing, because Jerry and I are close friends. Our friendship was formed around our interest in the Holocaust, trauma, and loss, but it now includes much more—caring for each other's families, other survivors, day-to-day concerns, and problems in living. I have no intentions to leave the field; there is no field to leave since Jerry is a part of my life (Elis, 2017). For example, in “With heart” (2014), Chris Patti and I suggested that, as researchers, wwe need to make space in our collaborative work for participants life events and also be available to support them during these passages. At one point during our research, Jerry's wile died and Sal, the survivor with whom Chris was working, became critically ill and died. Instead of viewing these events as tangential interruptions to our projects, wwe treated them as opportunities to be present, acknowledge personal loss, and offer support as caring family and friends would. In being compassionate listeners, we let the conversations go where they needed to, related our own stories of loss, and under- stood that losses accumulate and that recent losses might be related to and stimulate vivid memories of experiences in the Holocaust that need retelling, reinterpreting, and deep listening, Thus, in our article, we tell the stories of “being with” our participants during these traumatic and intimate moments, show how we strove to listen deeply, and examine how we revealed and learned about ourselves and about trauma in the process.6 AuTOETHNOGRAPHY 1 offer here a brief edited example of my interaction with Jerry after the death of his, wife: ‘Te death of my mother and sister at Treblinka is ike a haze,” Jery says. "But Helene’ [hi wife death brings back the memories. Onemiserylinks othe other When you think about the Holocaust \d you have a personal loss, ou compare them, “Brom what you tell me, it sounds like t's more emotional for yout think about how your mot .ad sister died than it is for you to think about losing your wife to cancer,” Carolyn responde, and Jerry nods. "Can you stop yourself from thinking about thove images [e.g gas chambers} when they come up?) “Tcouldn't function if didn’. Jerry responds. [...] “What also makes me sad is that I wasn’t with Helene when she died” “Sometimes people die only when we go away: they can't let go while we are ther,” I say. “Were you with your fist husband when he died?” “Yes, but what does it mean to have died? [left Gene and when I returned, he was taking his final breath. [believe he was gone before then,” “Did you hold his hand?” “Yes, and I tld him to et go. “There isa pause, and then, "When Tam sad about not being with Helene when she died, Think about how my mother and sister were alone when they were Killed, Well, they were with lots of others, bt Ihad left them. We didn't now then about the gas chambers and all So tome right now the psin in my heart i that T abandoned them. just hope tha as they were marching to the ovens that their minds went blank. Thope they did't know what was happening, because otherwise the pin, the terror is unimaginable, “Tuhink about that with my brother, too, when he died in an airplane crash, Did he fe fear? Was be conscious that he was dying?” We st silently, contemplating our losses. Teach out and take his band (Elis & Patt, 2014, pp. 100-101) Jerry and I share goals for our compassionate research. We seek to learn through our dialogic exchanges more about Jerry's experiences and feelings as well as to understand the perils and joys of being involved in a compassionate research process. Ukimately, ‘we hope to make a positive difference by providing one story in detail about a life and the trauma experienced. Tony “Any woman would be happy to receive those flowers,” the grocery cashier says about the roses in my shopping cart, The statement surprises me: I interpret what the cashier says to suggest that she assumes I am a cisgender male; that the roses, often a symbol of love and support, are fora cisgender woman; and that the “any woman’ about whom she speaks is not just a friend, but someone Iam wanting to date, or with whom Tam in an intimate relationship. Of course, friends buy roses for each other especially in times of illness and death, but the tone and inflection of the woman's voice suggests that I chose these roses for someone more special than a friend, In this fleeting moment in this busy store, I avoid asking the cashier what she means by her comment and what assumptions she has made about me. I simultaneously feel guilty for perpetuating, or allowing, the stereotype that I am heterosexual to proceed unquestioned. 1 think about a similar moment that happened a week before during a class I was teaching when a student asked about my “wife.” I did not want to publicly make theAUTOETHNOGRAPHY 7 student uncomfortable by telling him that I do not have a wife (or a girlfriend), that 1 openly identify as gay/queer, and that I am in a relationship with a man. But I also, simultaneously, felt disingenuous appearing as though T was passing as heterosexual in that moment, especially since many of the other students knew about my same-sex relationship and my self-proclaimed gay/queerness. I recall another moment in a grocery store when, while passing through the checkout line, I heard the cashier call a customer a “flaming faggot” and I felt compelled to indicate to the cashier my sexuality (Adams, 2011, p. 136) 1 offer these personal interactions to provide examples of how I approach doing auloethnography, and to offer insider accounts of experiences of being a particular kind of (nonheterosexual) person. Fist, for me these patterns of experiences—moments when others ask about, or assume, my heterosexual identity—are common; they unexpectedly happen in a variety of times and places—for example, in the grocery store or the classroom—and illustrate how cultural assumptions of heterosexuality can characterize everyday interactions. Second, [illustrate the dissonance I feel by not clarifying or correcting others about their (incorrect) assumptions of my sexuality, especially since coming out as anything but heterosexual can be risky and even dangerous. For example, I also have been criticized for coming out in my classroom by a student and then the president of the university, and I worried about losing my job. If I focused more on the “auto” part of these experiences, I may just write about these experiences. But the “ethno” part of autoethnography also requires me to merge personal and cultural experience, to show how I make sense of these events and, more generally, to offer insights about the ways in which cultural issues such as hetero/sexuality can infuse everyday interactions. Stacy When I was about to become an adoptive mother, I wanted to understand my experi- ence in relation to the experience of others I encountered in my research and met along the way: social workers, doctors, and government officials; adoptive parents and chil- dren; and prospective parents who were participating in the adoption process. I also ‘wanted to connect with my grandmother who, until the time I told my family about my plans to adopt, Ihad not known was an adopted child herself. My research interests and ‘writing created an opening, a chance to talk with my grandmother about an event that hhad a profound effect on her life, but one that she had not discussed in any detail with anyone in our family (Holman Jones, 2005). This inside-out journey then extended to the people who have read my and my grandmother's adoption stories and who have since offered their stories (Harris, 2014). My autoethnographic projects often begin with personal experiences that I want and need to understand more deeply and meaningfully. Often, these experiences are epiphanies—transformative moments and realizations that significantly shape or alter the (perceived) course of our lives (Denzin, 2013), Epiphanies prompt us to pause and reflect; they encourage us to explore aspects of our identities, relationships, and com- ‘muunities that, before the incident, we might not have had the occasion or courage to explore. For example, my grandmother died not long after I published my essay on my8 AuTOETHNOGRAPHY journey as an adoptive mother as told in and alongside her adoption story. My grand- ‘mother’s death was a crucial incident in my life; returning to my autoethnographic ‘writing on adoption allowed me a space to remember and memorialize our relationship, ‘This writing also prompted me to consider other losses that I was not ready or able to consider until, or because of, her passing, namely the decision to not adopt a second child and the sense ofloss that [felt about this choice. As Tnote in my writing about these losses, “If we are, indeed, at least ‘one loss behind’ in our grieving, becoming aware of our ongoing (and perhaps unfinished) grief can help us revisit losses as they existin rela tionship” (Holman Jones, 2011, p.336; Adams, Holman Jones, & Ellis, 2015, pp. 46-48) ‘Though our insights may be grounded in our experiences and allow us to better ‘understand key events in our lives, our accounts and interpretations might embarrass, harm, or expose others (Ellis, 1995). As I write above, I was not able to share my ‘writing about adoption and loss with my grandmother. In addition, I am only now able to share and talk about this work with my child, who was a baby when I began writing about adoption and who is now 15 years old, Even though the perspectives on adoption are my own, my inability to share my work with my grandmother is especially painful because she, more than anyone else in my family, was a supportive, careful, and critical reader of my writing: I know that her comments would have improved ‘my work. And while I was, and am, thoughtful about what I reveal about my child, we recently have had difficult conversations about the availability of my work online, its potential accessibility to her school friends, and asa possible source of embarrassment (Adams et al, 2015, p. 59) Conclusion Although we focus primarily on the autoethnographic work of communication researchers, the method has gained prominence across disciplines. Our coedited Handbook of Autoethnography (Holman Jones, Adams, & Ellis, 2013), for example, includes more than 40 essays written by scholars representing more than a dozen disciplines, including anthropology, communication, education, counseling, art, sociology, performance studies, poetry, gender and women's studies, critical and cultural studies, media studies, geography, music, psychology, and sport and exercise As the ever-increasing interest in learning about and doing autoethnography sug gests, those writing autoethnographically value stories, personal experience, and critical research. We try to make our writing and research accessible and interesting to many kkinds of readers, and, in so doing, improve our own and others’ lives. We respect our participants, our friends and families, and all who become characters in our stories, and wwe try to interrogate harmful cultural beliefs, practices, and experiences. Autoethnog- raphy, as a method, humanizes research by focusing on life as “lived through’ in its complexities; showing that you as readers and we as authors matter; and demonstrating to others who are involved in or implicated by our projects that they matter, oo. SEE ALSO: Critical Ethnography; Ethnography of Communication; Ethnography! Ethnographic Methods; Evocative Writing; Fieldwork; Personal Narratives as a Method of Writing; Reflexivity; Thick DescriptionAUTOETHNOGRAPHY 9 References ‘Adams, TB. (2011). Narratng the closet: An autoethnography of same-sex atracton. Walnut k, CA: Left Coast Pres. ‘Adams, -B, Holman Jones, 8, & Elis, (2015), Autothnography. Oxford: Oxford University Pres. Berry, K (2007). Embracing the catastrophe: Gay body zecksacceplance. Qualitative Inguiry, 13, 259-281. doi:0.1177/1077800406294934 Blair, C, Brown, }.R, & Baxter, LA. (1994) Disciplining the feminine, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80, 385-409, do:10-1080/00335639409384084 Bochner, A.B (2014) Coming t narrative: A personal history of paradigm change in the human sciences, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press Bochner, A. P, & Elis, C. (2002). Ethnographically speaking: Autoethnography, literature, and aesthetics, Walnut Creek, CA: AltsMira Pres Bochner, AP, & Elis, C. 5. (2006). Communication as autoethnography. In G. J. Shepherd J.St John, 8, Striphas (BGs), Communication as... Perspectives on theory (pp. 110-122). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Boylorn, R. M. (2011). Gray or for colored girls who are tired of chasing rainbows: Race and seflexivity. Cultwal Studies <=> Critical Methodologies, 11, 178-186. doi:t0.1177/ 1532708611401336 Boylorn, RM, (2014). A story & a stereotype: An angry and strong autofethnography of race, clas, and gender. In R.M.Boylorn & MP, Orbe (Eds), Critical autoethnography:Intersecting cultural identities in everyday ife (pp. 129-143), Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press Boylozn, R. (2015, January 14). Now that white people have declared "bae’ over, black people can ie it in peace. The Guardian. Retrieved May 1, 2015 from hispl/www:theguardisn. comicommentisteee/2015/jan/L4/white-people-declared-bae-aver-black-people-can-use-it (accessed October 10,2018) Cooper, B.C, Morris, SM, 8 Boylora, RM. (Eds) (2017) The Crunk Feminist Collection. New ‘York: The Feminist Press. Crawford, L. (1996). Personal ethnography. Communication Monographs, 63, 158-170 doi:0,1080/03637759609376384 Denzin, N. (2013). lnerpretive autoethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE lis, C. (1995). Final negotiations story of Tove, les, and chronic illness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, iis, C. (2004), The ethnographic I-A methodological novel about autoethnography, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press lis, C. (2009) Revision: Auoethmographic reflections on life and work Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press Eis, C, (2017) Compassionate research: Interviewing and storytelling from a relational ethics of care. In Goodson, M. Andrews, & A. Antikainen (Eds), The Routledge International Hand- book on Narative and Life History (pp. 431~45). New York: Routledge. Bilis, C, & Bochner, AP (Bas). (1996). Composing ethnography: Alternative forms of qualitative ‘writing, Walnwt Creek, Cd: AltaMira Fils, C, &eBochaer, AP (2006) Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity In N.K.Den- Zin &Y.S, Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research 2nd ed, pp. 733-768). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Es, C, & Flaherty, M.G. (Eds). (1992). Investigating subjectivity Research on lived experience. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. lis, C, & Pat, C. (2014). With heart. Storytelling Self. Society, 10, 83-118, doi:10.131201 storseifsoc.10 1.009310 AuTOETHNOGRAPHY Elis, C, & Rewicki, J. (2013), Collaborative witnessing of survival during the Holocaust ‘An exemplar of relational autoethnography. Qualitative Inguiry, 19, 366-380, doi:10.1177) 1077800413479562 Goldschmidt, W. (1977). Anthropology and the coming crisis: An autoethnographie appraisal American Anthropologist, 79, 293-308, doi 0,1525/aa.1977.79.2.02200060 Goodall, 1.1. (2008). A need to know: The clandestine history of a CIA family. Walot Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Harris, A.M. (2014). Ghost-child. In J. Wyatt & TB. Adams (Eds), On (writing) families: ‘Autoethnographies of presence and absence, love and oss (pp. 69-75). Rotterdam: Sense Hayano, D.M. (1978). Auto-cthnography: Paradigms, problems, and prospects. Human Organi- zation, 38, 99-104, doi'10.17730/humo.38.1.u761n5601t4g318v Heider, K. G. (1975). What do people do? Dani auto-ethnography. Journal of Anthropological Research, 31, 3-17, doi:10.1086)jat31.1,3629504 Hodges, N. (2014). The American dental dream. Health Communication, 30, 943-950, oi:10.1080/10410236 2014.914621 ‘Holman Jones, S. (2005). Autoethnography: Making the personal political. In N. K. Denzin &. S.Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 763-791). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Holman Jones, S. (2011). Lost and found. Text and Performance Quarterly, 31, 322-341, oi:10.1080/10462937-2011.602709 ‘Holman Jones, S, Adams, TE, & Elis, C. (Eds. (2013). Handbook of autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press Jago, B. J (2002). Chronicling an academic depression. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 31, 729-757. doi 10.1177/089124102237823 Patt, C.J. 2013). Compassionate storytelling with Holocaust survivors: Cultivating dialogue atthe end of an era, Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Florida. Smith, LT (1998). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous species. New York: Zed Books. ‘Tillmana, I. M. (2008). Body and bulimia revisited: Reflections on “a secret life." Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 98-112, doi:10.1080/00909880802592615 Further reading ‘Adams, T. E, & Manning, J. (2015). Autoethnography and family research. Journal of Family ‘Theory & Review, 7, 350-366, doi:10.1111/jftz 12116 Bochner, A. P, & Ellis, C. (2016). Evocative autoethnography: Writing lives and telling stories. ‘Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Boylorn, R. M. (2013). Sweetwater: Black women and narratives of resilience. New York: Peter Lang. Manning, J. & Adams, T. B. (Eds). (2015). Connecting the personal and the popular: Auto- ethnography and popular culture. The Popular Culture Studies Journal, 3, Special issue Sikes, P (Bd) (2013). Autoethnography: Thousand Oaks, CA: SAG Spry. T. 2011), Body: paper, stage: Writing and performing autoethnography, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press ‘Wyatt J, & Adams, TE, (Eds) On (writing) families: Autoethnographies of presence and absence, love and loss. Rotterdam: Sense. Tony Adams is an associate professor and chair of the Department of Communication, Media and ‘Theatre at Northeastern Illinois University. He studies and teaches aboutAUTOETHNOGRAPHY 1 interpersonal and family communication, autoethnography, qualitative research, com- ‘munication theory, and sex, gender, and sexuality; he has published four books and ‘more than 50 articles, book chapters, and reviews in these areas, For more information about his work, visit www-TonyEAdams.com Carolyn Ellis is distinguished university professor in communication at the Univer sity of South Florida, She has published numerous books, articles, and personal stories situated in emotions and interpretive representations of qualitative research, particu- larly autoethnography. Her current research focuses on collaborative witnessing and compassionate interviewing and storytelling with Holocaust survivors, For more infor- ‘mation, see http://communication.usf edu/faculty/celis! Stacy Holman Jones is a professor in the Centre for Theatre and Performance at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia and in the Department of Communication Studies at California State University, Northridge. Her research focuses broadly on how performance constitutes socially, culturally, and politically resistive and transformative activity. She specializes in the use of critical qualitative methods, particularly critical auto/ethnography, and performative writing. She is the author of more than 60 articles, book chapters, reviews, and editorials and the author/editor of eight books. She is the founding editor of Departures in Critical Qualitative Research, a journal dedicated to publishing innovative, experimental, aesthetic, and provocative works on the theories, practices, and possibilities of critical qualitative research