Journal of Sport Management, 2015, 29, 498  -509

http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2014-0144
© 2015 Human Kinetics, Inc. ARTICLE

Collaborative Self-Ethnography:
Navigating Self-Reflexivity in a
Sport Management Context
Shannon Kerwin
Brock University

Larena Hoeber
University of Regina

The main goal of our article is to encourage personal reflection within the field of sport management as a tool
to strengthen methodological approaches in our research. We explore and discuss the utility of collaborative
self-ethnography as one way to acknowledge personal identities through a reflexive account of our experiences
as sport fans and sport researchers with this methodology. We draw on a previous study of our experiences
as sport fans to illustrate techniques, downfalls, and benefits of studying one’s experiences in a collaborative
methodological approach. We have two objectives: First, we hope to encourage sport management researchers
to acknowledge and reflect on their personal identities related to sport, such as being a fan, coach, volunteer, or
former participant, in their research. Second, we aim to demonstrate the utility of collaborative self-ethnography
as one way to incorporate reflexivity in sport management research and theory development.

Keywords: fans, qualitative research, research methods

In their study of researchers who explore fandom in
sport and pop culture contexts, Schimmel, Harrington,
and Bielby (2007) found that 77% of sport scholars said
they were fans of what they study compared with 57% of
pop culture scholars. Moreover, Schimmel et al. (2007)
asked if these scholars reveal their fan identities in their
research. Only 22% of sport scholars acknowledged or
reflected on their sport fan identity during data collec-
tion, analysis, or dissemination. This compares to 53%
of pop culture scholars who self-identity during data
collection, and 51% who self-identify in publications.
The tendency for scholars to overlook, ignore, or not
recognize the self in their research may be explained by
the idea that “there is an implicit assumption that we are
investigating something ‘outside’ ourselves” (Aull Davis,
2008, p. 3). This assumption underpins concepts such as
objectivity, distance, and controlling for researcher bias.
Yet Aull Davis (2008) argued that “all researchers are to
some degree connected to, or part of, the objective of
Shannon Kerwin is with the Department of Sport Management,
Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada. Larena
Hoeber is with the Faculty of Kinesiology and Health Studies,
University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. Address
author correspondence to Larena Hoeber at larena.hoeber@
uregina.ca.
their research” (p. 3). In a similar vein, Bochner (2001,
p. 138) called attention to “the myth that our research is
divorced from our lives, that it has no autobiographical
dimension, that what we do academically is not part of
how we are working through the story of our own life.”
As qualitative-minded sport management scholars, we
challenge the trend identified by Schimmel et al. (2007)
and highlight the relevance of incorporating and acknowl-
edging our personal identities related to sport, such as
being a fan, coach, volunteer, or former participant, in
the research process.
Rinehart (2005) called for the use of personal nar-
ratives in sport management to “ascertain the meanings
and lived experiences that individuals assign to their
own lives” (p. 499). Yet autobiographical approaches
in this academic field are rare. Exceptions include an
autoethnography of a volunteer experience (Kodama,
Doherty, & Popovic, 2013), a reflection on women’s
participation and management issues in cricket (Flem-
ing & Fullagar, 2007), a self-reflection on teaching sport
management (Humberstone, 2009), and our collaborative
self-ethnography of our experiences as female sport fans
(Hoeber & Kerwin, 2013). The reluctance to explore this
methodological approach may be related to concerns
with objectivity and rigor. Specifically, self-studies are
critiqued for being too close to the participants, setting,
or study phenomenon to be able to engage in objective

498

analysis, and thus compromise rigor and verification
(Holt, 2003). These critiques assume that all researchers,
including those using positivistic approaches, are fully
aware of their preconceptions, biases, and the assump-
tions they take for granted, and can engage in objective
research. We argue that this assumption is unrealistic.
Others criticize self-studies for being self-indulgent,
navel-gazing exercises (see Sparkes, 2000) or question-
able attempts at authenticity (Miller, 2008). We question
why researchers, particularly those using interpretivist
approaches, cannot offer an authoritative voice on their
own lived experiences.
We contend that studying our lived experiences
provides valuable and sometimes different perspectives
on what we study. Self-study acknowledges that research-
ers have “personal, intuitive knowledge deriving from
knowing a subject in a specific social context” (Haynes,
2011, p. 134). Moreover, it recognizes our interest and
involvement with real-life phenomena or situations rather
than denying them. Thus, studying oneself and one’s
experiences with a phenomenon may inform theory, as
well as our own assumptions and expectations within our
research practices. Traditional approaches to research
“separates subject from knowledge, observation from
participation, and reflection from direct experience”
(Bochner, 2001, p. 138). But studying oneself allows
researchers to explore the connections, gaps, and intersec-
tions between our personal and academic lives, in areas
such as “subjectivity and objectivity, passion and intel-
lect, and autobiography and culture” (Ellis & Bochner,
2000, p. 761).
The main goal of our work is to encourage personal
reflection within the field of sport management as a tool
to strengthen methodological approaches in our research.
This goal is served through two primary objectives.
First, we encourage researchers in the sport management
domain to recognize and reflect on their personal sport
identities (e.g., fan, coach, official, former athlete) in
their research. Through a discussion of our own previ-
ous work (Hoeber & Kerwin, 2013), we highlight and
support personal narrative as a means of reflexivity but
also recognize there are other ways of acknowledging
the impact of our researcher identities in what we study.
Second, and specific to personal narrative, we propose
one approach (collaborative self-ethnography) for incor-
porating reflexivity in sport management research. As
such, the purpose of this article is to explore and discuss
the utility of collaborative self-ethnography in the field of
sport management through a reflexive account. We draw
on the study of our experiences as sport fans (Hoeber &
Kerwin, 2013) to illustrate techniques, downfalls, and
benefits of studying one’s experiences in a collaborative
approach.
Self-Study Approaches
The study and recognition of oneself as a member of the
research setting has been discussed in a number of different
ways (e.g., Anderson & Austin, 2012; Atkinson, Coffey
JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015
Collaborative Self-Ethnography  499
& Delamont, 2003; Cann & DeMeulenaere, 2012; Ellis,
2004; Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011; Rinehart, 2005).
Two of the more commonly used and known approaches
are autoethnography and self-ethnography. Autoethnogra-
phy is often described as a reflection and analysis of very
personal incidents, including, but not limited to, death,
disease, and abuse (Ellis, 2004). In autoethnographies,
the researchers are the central focus of the study; in con-
trast, with self-ethnographies, the researchers are part of
the study but are not necessarily or always the primary
focus. Alvesson (2003) described self-ethnography as a
research method whereby “the researcher-author describes
a cultural setting to which s/he has a ‘natural access’, is an
active participant, more or less on equal terms with other
participants” (p. 174). Alvesson (2003) argued that in self-
ethnography, participation in the setting is prioritized over
research observation for the purpose of fully experiencing
the phenomenon.
Importance of Reflexivity
A common element of all self-studies is an emphasis on
researcher reflexivity, which “draw[s] attention to the
complex relationship between processes of knowledge
production and the various contexts of such processes
as well as the involvement of the knowledge producer”
(Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000, p. 5). According to Alves-
son and Sköldberg (2000), reflexive practice is based
on two fundamental assumptions: (a) all research is
based on interpretation of data, and (b) researchers need
to carefully consider their interpretations of the data.
There are numerous benefits associated with researcher
reflexivity. First, the researcher is written into the work.
There is purposeful visibility of the researcher instead of
ignoring, omitting, or obscuring their impact and role.
Anderson and Austin (2012) refer to this as “method-
ological transparency” (p. 140). Second, the researcher
is afforded the opportunity to share a unique perspective
“through which to observe social life, one that opens the
prepared researcher to compelling analytical insights”
(Anderson & Austin, 2012, p. 140). Finally, the researcher
is permitted to “explore some aspects of our social lives
in a deeper and more sustained manner” (Anderson &
Austin, 2012, p. 140).
When the researcher is an active participant in the
study, some have used bracketing to address issues of sub-
jectivity and to establish rigor (Ashworth, 1999; Gearing,
2004; Tufford & Newman, 2012). Bracketing is a process
whereby the researcher acknowledges, but sets aside, his
or her assumptions, viewpoints, and experiences that may
influence the study (Tufford & Newman, 2012). One
drawback of this approach is it suggests researchers can
and want to set aside their preconceived ideas and prior
experiences. Moreover, it ignores the potential insight to
be gained by incorporating the researcher’s viewpoint.
Collaborative Ethnography
Engaging in a research project in which the researchers
are involved in constant comparison of their impact in the
500  Kerwin and Hoeber
study and interpretation of the data, such as with a col-
laborative ethnography, is another approach for acknowl-
edging researcher reflexivity. Collaborative ethnography
(May & Pattillo-McCoy, 2000) is a method in which
two or more ethnographers work together to gather data
on the same social phenomenon, where data collection
may occur in different social settings (see also Burawoy
et al., 1991; Clerke & Hopwood, 2014; Sullivan, 1989).
This approach supports the idea that there is not only
one shared or consistent reality (May & Pattillo-McCoy,
2000). The process of constantly comparing and explor-
ing the field notes of multiple researchers highlights the
notion that individuals experience similar phenomena in
convergent and divergent ways. Consequently, collabora-
tive ethnography emphasizes how our worlds are socially
constructed, and the ways in which, as researchers, our
“personal biographies and characteristics, as well as our
very human capacities, are reflected in our field notes”
(May & Pattillo-McCoy, 2000, p. 67). Todd and Kent
(2009) note that the emotional significance of group
membership in sport yields many positive rewards that
potentially influence behaviors. Thus, understanding and
acknowledging our lived identities in sport and how they
play a role in our methods and practice may be an increas-
ingly relevant component of contemporary research in
the field of sport management.
Within the study of our sport fan experiences
(Hoeber & Kerwin, 2013), we felt it was likely that we
shared similar experiences as fans, but that certain ones
might vary because of our different contexts and personal
worldviews. Consequently, we adapted a collaborative
ethnographic approach to encompass self-ethnography
and labeled it collaborative self-ethnography. We do
not see this as an entirely new approach, but rather a
combination of methodological approaches. Later in the
article, we discuss why we felt that existing self-study
approaches did not fit what we wanted to accomplish, and
how we adapted existing ones to make them work for us.
Given our dual identities as sport fans and sport man-
agement researchers, we felt we must acknowledge the
role of our fan identities as part of the research process.
As noted earlier, sport management researchers often
remove themselves as fans, volunteers, participants, or
coaches from the topics that they study (Schimmel et
al., 2007). This is somewhat limiting because in some
cases, sport management researchers may be particularly
credible sources in the examination of topics related to
these “outside” or personal roles, in that there exists a
trained ability to critically reflect on personal experiences.
Thus, for this article, we argue that applying the tenets
of collaborative self-ethnography may provide valuable
insight into how our research influences our personal
experiences (specifically for us, our sport fan experiences)
and in turn how our personal experiences as sport fans
influences our research.
The remainder of our article is presented in two parts.
First, we discuss the use of collaborative self-ethnography
as one method to recognize our fan identity (the personal
identity that was relevant for our study) when exploring
JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015
sport fan experiences (see Hoeber & Kerwin, 2013). Here
we describe our approach and highlight some challenges
of using collaborative self-ethnography. To illustrate the
shared, self-reflexive nature of this approach, we incor-
porate some of our discussions and field notes in this
first section. In the second part, we discuss the benefits
of collaborative self-ethnography and consider how our
academic and personal selves were influenced by this
research approach.
Our Journey Toward Collaborative
Self-Ethnography
In this section, we discuss our decision to use collabora-
tive self-ethnography as a means of self-reflection. We
draw specific attention to the application of this reflec-
tive practice in our study of female sport fan experiences
(Hoeber & Kerwin, 2013). Moreover, we outline how we
determined the research design, how we collected and
analyzed the data, and our experiences with disseminat-
ing our findings. Our discussion is supported by quota-
tions from our field notes, reflections, and commentary
associated with previous research regarding self-study.
Decision to Pursue Self-Study
Within qualitative research, the researcher is seen as the
research instrument (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), and thus
objectivity is not achievable (Rinehart, 2005) or even
desirable. Rather, an important characteristic of qualita-
tive research is reflexivity—acknowledging, incorporat-
ing, and reflecting on one’s background, identity, beliefs,
and experiences (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000).
Self-studies have been used in sport and leisure
studies to examine broad topics like emotion, body, and
social identities (e.g., Anderson & Austin, 2012; Rinehart,
2005). Gender has been a particular focus, particularly
for female researchers, because “sports and leisure are
highly gendered in contemporary societies” (Anderson &
Austin, 2012, p. 138). There has been some critique of the
use of self-studies in a sport context. Miller (2008) argued
that too much research in sport sociology has relied on
autoethnographic accounts, particularly with respect to
“personal achievement as a lever of authenticity” (p.
541). Specifically, he claims sport sociology research
has relied on discussing success on the playing field as a
benchmark for the label of a “real” sport experience. This
focus on successful sport experiences, however, may limit
theoretical understanding of the sport experience itself.
From our perspective, self-studies have been scarcely
used when examining experiences associated with the
management of sport. For example, experiences associ-
ated with being a sport fan, volunteer, or coach could
benefit from reflecting on the researchers’ personal
lived experience with those phenomena. In addition, we
believe that self-studies enhance the authenticity of a
study in that they allow the personal voice of researchers
to be acknowledged and further inform the credibility

and trustworthiness of our data analysis. Although we
appreciate the value of self-studies now, we debated the
appropriateness of this approach when mapping our study
regarding the experiences of female sport fans. Some of
this debate came in the form of self-doubt as well as the
utility of the methodology within our field.
Larena.  I teach undergraduate and graduate students to
recognize that they will always influence their research.
I encourage them to acknowledge their subjectivity
through written accounts of their researcher positionality.
I have, from time to time, revealed some of my identity
in my research. Yet, although Rinehart (2005) argues that
“the self is worthy of exploration” (p. 499), I had not
considered it acceptable to study my own experiences
as a female sport fan. Why did I rule out the study of my
experiences? Likely because I worried that the academic
community would discredit my work, if I studied myself,
for being too close, too subjective, and too biased—terms
I sometimes hear colleagues use to question the rigor and
truthfulness of qualitative research.
On the basis of my research training, I assumed that if I
wanted to study the experiences of female sport fans, I had to
study the experiences of others. As a qualitative researcher,
I could incorporate my experiences, feelings, and thoughts
into a study to serve as a reinforcement of or contrast with
the findings; however, my experiences were not supposed to
be central to the study. If they were, how could I maintain
any objectivity by examining my own experiences? But
then I began to wonder, why are my experiences dismissed
as irrelevant just because I am the researcher?
Shannon.  We experienced a collective reluctance to
explore our own experiences as female sport fans. In
the beginning, my hesitation to move forward with a
self-ethnography was based on my own self-doubt. This
notion of self-doubt certainly carries over into many
facets of my life and is also quite prominent in my identity
as a sport fan. In the sport context, I often feel that others
(men in particular) question my legitimacy as a fan. Thus,
here in the sport research context, I too question my
legitimacy as a study participant and self-ethnographer.
I still find myself thinking, are “they” going to believe
that I am the right person to tell this story?
On that note, we discussed at length whether we were
the right people to help open the door to self-study methods
in sport fan literature specifically and sport management
broadly. Challenging myself to answer questions about
my sport fan experience not only uncovered my uncertain-
ties regarding my own female sport fan identity, but also
emphasized the potential power of my commentary on
evoking others’ narratives regarding sport fan experiences,
both male and female. This process has shown me that my
sport fan identity and my sport researcher identity have the
potential to inform one another.
Determining the Research Design
Once we made our decision to take on a self-study
approach, we needed to determine what the process
JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015
Collaborative Self-Ethnography  501
looked like and which self-study method would be used.
Similar to Wall (2006) and Cann and DeMeulenaere
(2012), we had many questions about determining and
labeling our self-study approach. For instance, were
we defining our methodology as an autoethnography
that focuses solely on the researcher in a social context
(Anderson & Austin, 2012; Ellis, 2004)? Perhaps self-
ethnography was a better description, where the focus
is on the “cultural context, what goes on around oneself
rather than putting oneself and one’s experiences in the
centre” (Alvesson, 2003, p. 175). Or perhaps it was not
a self-study approach, but rather a collaborative ethnog-
raphy in which two or more researchers work together
to gather data on the same social phenomenon or in the
same setting (Clerke & Hopwood, 2014; May & Pattillo-
McCoy, 2000).
Larena.  Our reading of the method, particularly Ellis’s
(2004) book, made us question whether our study of
female sport fans’ experiences would be accepted as
autoethnographic, given that we were more interested
in the setting and context than the specific details of our
experiences. Thus, we rejected approaches that included
the term autoethnography, (e.g., critical coconstituted
autoethnography, collective autoethnography). Self-
ethnography seemed more relevant for our work
because our interest was in the cultural context itself
(i.e., the experience of women attending sport events),
but we could not put our experiences on the margins, as
Alvesson (2003) suggested. Our experiences were what
informed our understanding of this context. Yet again
we questioned whether this approach was appropriate.
We understood self-ethnographies to be a solo effort and
found ourselves asking, can these be conducted with two
or more people?
Shannon.  I think these questions were at the forefront
when we came across May and Pattillo-McCoy’s (2000)
article on collaborative ethnography. Their collaborative
technique spoke to our desired research approach and
our comfort zone as researchers. Yet their work did not
involve an examination of their own personal experiences.
It was a study of the culture in one particular setting—a
neighborhood recreation center (May & Pattillo-McCoy,
2000). Therefore, we labeled our work “collaborative”
to acknowledge the fact that we were two researchers
working together and sharing our experiences, and “self-
ethnography” to highlight that our observations were
focused on the context of our own lived experiences as
sport fans.
Two challenges we faced with this approach were
determining how to proceed with it and how to do it
correctly. To say the least, we were novices with this
approach. As Larena noted: “The whole self-ethnography
and just realizing how intense it is . . . I mean doing it
accurately I am realizing it is going to be hard.” The dis-
cussions we engaged in regarding the literature provided
us with much flexibility and many ideas, but the lack of
structure to the approaches in general made us somewhat
uncomfortable. Thus, we initially lacked confidence in
502  Kerwin and Hoeber
our abilities regarding self-study. By constantly dialogu-
ing with one another, we began to see the many benefits
of the methodology, and our reflections became more and
more introspective and revealing.
Collecting our data.  Within this approach, we
independently attended sport events over a 3-month
period. At each event, we paid attention to our experiences
as women and fans and to the involvement of other
women in attendance. After the event, we noted our
experiences in journals. Throughout the data collection
and analysis phases, we dialogued with each other
via Skype. We shared our experiences and reflections,
questioned our analysis, and responded to each other’s
experiences.
We attended professional sport events in North
America (e.g., Major League Baseball, Canadian Football
League) from July to September 2010. These events were
ones that we were planning to attend as fans and were part
of our regular routines. We documented and reflected on
our experiences as sport fans through journaling, which
involved producing written and digital field notes. By
using two sources of data (Shannon’s experiences, Lar-
ena’s experiences), our approach addressed the critique
that self-studies rely on single sources of data (oneself;
Holt, 2003).
Our journals included reflections on a variety of
topics related to our experiences as female sport fans,
such as noting the people who sat around us at games,
how certain groups of people made us feel, and how
sport merchandise was marketed to female fans. We also
included narratives from previous events that provided
additional insight into our experiences as sport fans. In
most cases, our current experiences allowed us to reflect
on how we became sport fans and the critical incidents
that shaped our sport fan identities.
After each sport event (seven in total), we had
lengthy, online conversations regarding the content of our
journal entries. In addition, we debated our documented
experiences in terms of how those experiences made us
feel and how our experiences confirmed (or rejected)
the assumptions we made going into this study. For
instance, we assumed that most male fans (excluding our
personal inner circle of male sport fans) would question
and challenge our authenticity as fans and that we would
encounter female fans that we deemed to be inauthentic.
What we did not realize was that most men were in fact
supportive of (or perhaps indifferent to) our role as sport
fans and that we were actually quite judgmental of other
women around us who attended the same events.
Given the geographical distance between us, these
conversations happened over Skype. Larena remarked
during one of these conversations that this “works kind
of well to reflect after we go to some events as opposed
to waiting a long, long time and trying to reflect on some
of these things.” The immediate and collaborative reflec-
tion on our experiences allowed us to engage in further
reflexive activity at subsequent sport events, which we
will discuss later. In writing this article, we drew on these
JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015
“conversations we had long before we realized that we
would need to write about the topic” (Cann & DeMeu-
lenaere, 2012, p. 150).
We engaged in extensive discussions about our jour-
nal topic selections and our roles as participant observers.
The decisions about the inclusion and exclusion of topics
in our journals were made at the subconscious level;
however, the collaborative process of analysis allowed us
to reflect on these choices. For example, when Shannon
reflected on the female sport fans who sat around her at
an event, Larena asked why she focused on female fans
and not male fans as well. This process resulted in a fairly
lengthy conversation about our assumptions regarding
other female sport fans and mirrored the qualitative
approach used by Collinson (2003, 2008), in which the
data are analyzed while they continue to be collected. In
addition, it demonstrates the important role of reflexivity
throughout this process.
Critique of each other’s journal entries required a
substantial amount of collaborative self-reflection. We
needed to be able to share personal stories, both good and
bad, with each other, be open to each other’s comments
and reflections, and be able to discuss and question our
experiences rather than accepting them as normal or
natural. In one of our conversations, Shannon shared her
anxiety of revealing parts of herself to Larena, someone
that she knew professionally before this study:
Even talking about it here today with you, I know
you fairly well, but I haven’t known you that long,
so I had a little bit of anxiety of sharing some of this.
I was thinking, “Oh my God, I am really opening
a door.”
We were aware of our personal sport identities but
had never thought of sharing those in a professional set-
ting, even though now this seems an obvious thing to do.
Other sport researchers who have completed self-studies,
such as Coghlan (2012) and Trussell (2010), also com-
mented on the difficulty of revealing oneself, particularly
experiences, thoughts, and emotions that are uncomfort-
able or unflattering.
Both of us commented on our desire to censor par-
ticular stories or reflections, a point that Ellis (2004) also
made. Shannon noted: “I was thinking as I was starting to
read through a lot of Ellis’ work and she really talks about
how it is difficult sometimes to really expose yourself and
I am finding that a little bit.” Larena added:
This isn’t as easy as it looks because it is very dif-
ficult to be honest with yourself . . . it is so easy to
think that you can just censor. You can say, “Oh no
no. That is not coming out.” Or “those are not my
real feelings.”
One of the most difficult situations to confront was
our practice of marginalizing and questioning other
female fans. Larena recognized that she questioned the
motivations of other female fans (e.g., real fans show
up for the start of the baseball game and not in the

third inning, as three women who sat behind her did)
and lacked patience to teach other women about sport.
Shannon recalled that when noticing two women at a bar
before a baseball game, she wondered when their male
partners would show up.
The irony of these reflections is that as researchers
we expect our participants to share personal experiences
and feelings, which may not always put them in a posi-
tive light. The implications and anxiety associated with
sharing one’s stories becomes heightened when “it is no
longer these sort of faceless subjects that we are study-
ing. It is ourselves and I think that it is very challenging”
(Larena).
Analyzing our experiences.  Through a process similar
to Collinson’s (2003) description of the data analysis
technique in her autoethnography, we engaged in a
constant comparison method between our two divergent,
yet somewhat similar, sport fan experiences. We can
also relate to Zanker and Gard (2008), who stated, “we
have tried to construct a dialogue between our different
positions; on the one hand using a [self-]ethnographic
voice and, on the other, an academic voice. There are
times when the academic voice refers back to the [self-]
ethnographic one” (p. 52). This point speaks directly to
our strategy of analysis and synthesis of our experiences.
We also found ourselves having “a-ha” moments in which
individually we started to see patterns in our behavior that
we had never consciously acknowledged in the past. For
instance, we both began to see how much we, as feminist
scholars, were overly critical of other female spectators
at sporting events (Hoeber & Kerwin, 2013).
Specifically, the process of analysis that was under-
taken subscribed to what Anderson (2006) proposed
as analytic self-ethnography. This refers to research in
which the researchers are (a) insider members in the
participant group or setting, (b) identifiable as members
in publications or presentations, and (c) interested and
obligated to understanding their lived experiences from
theoretical perspectives. It is not just telling a story
(although we do not consider this an invalid method of
dissemination); rather, our training and programming
as sport management scholars have guided our inquiry
toward linking experiences to theory and contributing to
literature. This analytic voice could not be removed from
our self-ethnographic reflection. It was our experiences,
understandings of the current state of sport fan literature,
and collective discussions that illuminated what being a
female sport fan meant to each of us. Thus, it is important
to note that the ultimate goal of our collaborative self-
ethnography study was to share our sport fan experiences
in a way that potentially increases discussion and theoreti-
cal understanding around gendered sport fan experiences.
After our discussions of our journal reflections and
the establishment of common themes, we then began
to reflect on our reflections and themes. This next step
consisted of three 60- to 90-min Skype conversations
in which we critiqued our themes. We asked each other
such questions as, “How do men really look at us in our
JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015
Collaborative Self-Ethnography  503
sport fan experiences? Is this how we think they view us
or how they really do view us? Are we confident in our
sport fan identities? Why? Why not?” Our field notes
and Skype conversations were recorded and transcribed
verbatim. Once transcribed, we proceeded to reflect on
appropriate strategies to analyze the data. Yet we realized
that our initial conversations themselves were steeped
with analysis. We had continually discussed our most
meaningful experiences and how those experiences
compared between us. The dialogue process in and of
itself provided analysis:
Shannon: When I was taking notes after my fan
experience, I kept thinking, why am I doing that?
I am feeding into the female fan stereotype. These
women were at the event by themselves, they ended
up going into the game by themselves, but I can’t
help thinking they had to be waiting for men . . . I
was feeding into the stereotype myself. After chatting
here, that for me was really hard to admit actually.
As I was writing notes and we were talking here, I
was thinking that I was actually part of this problem.
Larena: I think those are the deep hidden things that
even though we are educated and we are very aware
of these things, we still have them. It is hard not to
have them. We start to make those gender stereotypes
that they . . . should be there with male partners or
whoever it is, their husbands or boyfriends or what-
ever. It would be odd to see them there by themselves.
I would think that is odd; even though I don’t think
it is odd for me to go by myself, but to see someone
else, I do.
From our conversations related to our sport fan
experiences, three main themes arose from our field notes
and reflections: (a) negotiating our definition of being a
sport fan, (b) the female sport fan as “the outsider,” and
(c) marginalization of other women (Hoeber & Kerwin,
2013). One benefit of our approach to self-study was the
ability to critique, discuss, and analyze our viewpoints,
and reflection allowed for a level of credibility and
trustworthiness that may not be present in alternative
approaches. The ability to be open and honest with one
another took some time, but once established, it was an
incredible asset to the authenticity of our discussions.
Representing Ourselves
The final stage of research is the dissemination of find-
ings. We both expressed concerns about presenting our
work in person and on paper. From our review of the lit-
erature, it was apparent that researchers used a variety of
formats to present the self, although most involved some
form of first-person text (Ellis, 2004; Haynes, 2011),
including narratives, vignettes, and fictionalized stories
(Rinehart, 2005). To add to our confusion about how
to present our work, there appeared to be no consistent
pattern for the intersection of data and theory (Haynes,
2011). We had questions: How many of our stories do
504  Kerwin and Hoeber
we include before it becomes a self-indulgent exercise?
Would the inclusion of any personal story serve as a red
flag of this self-indulgence? Do our stories compromise
the anonymity of people in our lives? How can we share
personal stories in our writing without potentially com-
promising the double-blind review process?
We were concerned about the lack of acceptance
of a self-study approach in sport management, in part
because it is not commonly used and because it often chal-
lenged traditional ways of dissemination. We wondered
whether sport management reviewers would understand
and accept our approach, particularly if it deviated from
the traditional formula in which findings are situated in
theory (see Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013). Moreover, manu-
scripts based on self-studies are difficult to review, and
sometimes heavily questioned and scrutinized, because
reviewers do not agree with them or do not know how to
evaluate them (Anderson & Austin, 2012; Sparkes, 2000).
In one article and two presentations, we used a blend
of dissemination approaches. Regarding the manuscript,
our findings were situated in theory (hegemonic mascu-
linity), which was not part of our original submission,
but rather a response to a reviewer’s comments. When
responding to the reviewer, we engaged in several rounds
of reflection to determine whether including theory would
take away from our reflections. Ultimately, we decided
that as researchers, we have been trained to and have
experience with discussing and dissecting our contribu-
tion to theory. We oftentimes found ourselves discussing
our contribution to previous literature in our Skype con-
versations and thus had theoretical implications at top of
mind. In this case, situating our dialogue in theory seemed
authentic. As a result, the findings and discussion sections
were presented as two concurrent dialogues, somewhat
akin to the work of Learmouth and Humphreys (2012).
For our presentations, we pushed ourselves to chal-
lenge some of the typical conventions. At one conference,
we presented while wearing fan gear. This was done to
add legitimacy to our presentation. Interestingly, shortly
after the presentation, both of us returned to our normal
conference attire (e.g., dress pants, skirt). This experience
was an odd juxtaposition of different norms and our dif-
ferent identities. There is one side of us that is comfortable
in dress clothes because it adds formality to our identity
as researchers; however, we are also equally comfortable
in athletic attire at sporting events. At another conference,
we incorporated photos of ourselves in our PowerPoint
presentation. Although this was not a significant depar-
ture from typical presentations, it added a very personal
element that was unique to this methodology.
Overall, we felt anxious about revealing ourselves,
and those around us who are involved in our sport fan
experiences, at conferences and presentations. Although
researchers regularly use data from other, sometimes
anonymous, individuals and at times reveal information
about others through their words or images, the act of
exposing oneself to the critique of academics was height-
ened when we realized the critique would be directed
toward us. The following excerpt from one of our conver-
sations illustrates our anxiety about revealing ourselves.
JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015
Shannon: I think I will have to be mentally prepared
too. Even to present something like this. I find talking
like this is really good, but I am going to be super
nervous to give this to anyone else.
Larena: Isn’t this a funny thing about how I have
never been nervous, really, about sharing other
people’s words that I have collected, but since this
is my own or your own, all of a sudden I am kind of
scared. I am scared actually.
Shannon: Yeah. I am scared because I have never
thought too much about it. I submit an abstract and
think, “OK well they accept it or they don’t.” But
this one I am thinking “Oh my God, what if they
don’t like this?”
Larena: Then they don’t like me, right?
It is important to recognize that we are academicians
and cannot (perhaps should not) remove our academic
voices or points of view from our self-ethnographic
voices. We shaped our narratives in this manner. Our
analysis strategy allowed us to tell our stories as sport
fans, and it permitted a response to each other’s reflec-
tions with our own narrative and analysis through both
academic and sport fan perspectives. Thus, the final text
commentary of our findings fell in line with the flow of
our numerous Skype conversations. In particular, the sto-
ries that kept coming up as important to us were the ones
that we found most meaningful. These were the ones that
we decided to feature in our findings (Hoeber & Kerwin,
2013). We recognize that it may not be as important to
go through every instance of our sport fan experience in
a systematic manner, but rather acknowledge that there
are certain stories or moments that shape our perceptions,
lives, and identities as sport fans. Through the process
of attempting to authentically represent ourselves in the
presentation and dissemination of our self-study, we have
uncovered that our sport fan and sport researcher identi-
ties have the potential to inform one another. Our sport
fan experiences contribute to our understanding of the
sport fan literature and context when in the field and in the
classroom. Moreover, our expertise as sport researchers
opens our eyes to unique aspects of what goes on behind
the scenes of the sport industry. Through connecting the
two identities in our research, the dissemination of our
work may be enhanced.
Reflexive Benefits of a
Collaborative Self-Ethnography
Richardson (2000) suggested that there are five criteria
for evaluating a self-ethnography (and other forms of
Creative Analytical Practice Ethnography, such as col-
laborative self-ethnography): substantive contribution,
aesthetic merit, reflexivity, impact, and expression of
lived experience. Substantive contribution considers the
contribution of the work to understanding of social life
or a given phenomenon. Aesthetic merit suggests that

the writing encourages interpretive responses from the
readers. Reflexivity is based on the judgment surround-
ing the self-awareness and self-exposure presented by
the author(s). Impact refers to whether the reader has a
reaction, positive, negative, or otherwise. Finally, expres-
sion of lived experience is embedded in the reader’s belief
that the text is a credible account of the individual’s sense
of reality.
On the basis of a reflection of these criteria as well
as our experience with this methodology, we identified
three benefits of using a collaborative self-ethnography
approach over other self-study approaches specifically
and traditional methodologies generally: (a) it height-
ened our reflexive practices, (b) it illustrated overlap in
our identities, and (c) we discovered shared experiences.
These benefits will be discussed in relation to previous
research using self-study methods.
Heightened Reflexive Practice
When we shared our stories and experiences with each
other, it brought to our attention areas that we might not
have considered if we had completed this project indi-
vidually, as is typically done with self-study approaches
(May & Pattillo-McCoy, 2000). A collaborative approach
pushed us to be honest with our reflections, in that we
could not hide or ignore aspects of ourselves. Similar to
previous collaborative ethnographies (Adler & Adler,
1990, 1998; May & Pattillo-McCoy, 2000), collaborative
reflection forced us to challenge each other’s assump-
tions of similar events through the discussion of our
unique experiences. For example, Shannon noted that she
purposely learns the history and roster of teams before
going to games, particularly if it is a team that she does
not regularly follow. She does this to maintain legitimacy
and credibility around male fans. The sharing of this story
with Larena forced her to consider why she does this as
a female fan.
In terms of history, I know a lot about the Blue Jays
because that is the team that I support, but I feel
like I need to know about the other teams as well in
these discussions. When really, as a true fan, I am
a fan of the sport but I specifically follow the Blue
Jays. So, why is that not enough for me? I am not
sure. I did feel that intense pressure to be involved in
that conversation to prove that I am a sport fan and
a baseball fan in particular. So that was something
that got to me a little bit, I guess. Especially looking
back on it and trying to figure out why I am doing
it. In the moment, my actions spoke louder than any
sort of explanation. I am really trying to legitimize
myself as a true baseball fan.
The sharing of Shannon’s story led Larena to ask whether
she also engages in this same practice: “I will have to
check that out the next time I talk with my brothers.
Whether or not I do that [learn history, legitimize fandom
with stats and history], because I think that I don’t, but
. . . maybe I do.”
JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015
Collaborative Self-Ethnography  505
The collaborative process heightened our awareness
of what we did as female fans. For example, Shannon
talked about her realization that being feminine was an
important identity for her to maintain, even as a sport fan:
I also know that I don’t want my femininity to be
lost behind being a sport fan. This is relevant for
me, and maybe not for everyone in general in terms
of female experiences, but maybe others can relate
to that feeling of not wanting to be mistaken for a
male. Really that plays a role in what I am buying
and what I am purchasing and how I depict myself
to others as a sport fan; how I get into that role. It
really kind of . . . not overwhelmed me, but I know
that I do this all the time, so it is something that I
kind of push it in the back of my mind. Having to
actually talk about or acknowledge it has shown me
that it is huge for me to be able to be feminine in
my sport fan role.
As noted earlier, significant reflection occurred when
we realized that both of us judge other women at sport
events. Shannon said: “judging other people I think is a
huge part of what I noticed throughout this experience
that I never would have picked up . . . otherwise.” Larena
realized that she was annoyed by female spectators who
did not conform to “normal” fan behaviors, such as
showing up on time, watching the game, and knowing
basic rules of the game. In addition, Larena recognized
that she critiqued highly feminized products (e.g., pink,
rhinestoned, low-cut clothing) being marketed to women,
and the women who wore this merchandise. On reflection,
she felt that her critique was a strategy to further legiti-
mize her role as a real sport fan. Through the reflexive
process of this project, we realized that we make assump-
tions about the authenticity of other female sport fans. It
was hard to admit, but we perpetuated the stereotype of
women being inauthentic sport fans. Before this project,
neither of us had really thought about our behavior as
fans and how we might be further marginalizing women
into a fragmented group of sport fans. Thus, as noted
in previous research (Adler & Adler, 1990, 1998; May
& Pattillo-McCoy, 2000), the process of collaborative
self-ethnography allowed our analysis to go beyond
narrow-sighted navel-gazing and provided each of us an
“analysis soundboard” with which to challenge assump-
tions and behavior.
Reflection Regarding Relationships
Between Identities
This methodological approach encouraged us to discuss
and reflect on the relationship between our lived identi-
ties, including those related to our gender, profession, and
leisure interests. From our experiences, we suggest that
it is rare for sport management researchers, regardless
of the methodologies that they use, to consider whether
their personal lived experiences in sport, as fans, coaches,
participants, officials, volunteers, and so forth, affect
506  Kerwin and Hoeber
the phenomena they study. The collaborative process
allowed us to discuss these relationships with someone
else who was in a similar situation (i.e., another female
sport management researcher/sport fan).
A focal point of much of our discussions was the
negotiation of our gender and our fan identities. We rec-
ognized that these two identities can conflict: “We know
that we love sports but we know too that sport is identi-
fied as a masculine pursuit and it’s very male dominated”
(Larena). Similarly, Shannon noted “I’m struggling with
myself and how am I as a female sport fan. How does that
negotiation work and being authentic?” Shannon negoti-
ated this perceived conflict by ensuring she wore sport
clothing that identified her as female, such as making
sure her ponytail could be seen under her baseball cap.
Even now, yesterday, putting on the hat in the store
and today as I put it on before we are about to head
out, I am constantly aware of that . . . hmmm . . . that
little motion of just turning my head. It is saying,
yes I am a woman. I am a sport fan. I am a baseball
fan, but I am also female. So, I don’t want anyone to
forget that I guess and I am constantly aware of that.
Like Shannon, Larena emphasized her sport fan role
around other male fans through sharing her knowledge
of sport and players. In contrast to Shannon, however,
Larena de-emphasized her femininity by wearing athletic
clothing to games. Similar to identifying commonali-
ties in our experiences, the collaborative approach also
afforded us the opportunity to discuss contrasts in how
we viewed our behavior (May & Pattillo-McCoy, 2000).
The collaborative process allowed for a continuous dis-
cussion of the “why” that went beyond rhetoric and into
enhanced critical self-analysis.
Our struggle with these two identities is not unique.
Other researchers have found evidence of female sport
fans figuring out how to deal with their femininity within
a predominantly masculine domain (e.g., Jones, 2008).
This tension has also been discussed by Osborne and
Coombs (2013). They presented the idea of performative
sport fandom, which posits that “fan identity interacts in
interesting and important ways with other identities such
as gender, race, sexual orientation, socio-economic class
and nationality” (p. 667). Moreover, they added that per-
formative acts are relational, contextual, and negotiable.
That is, “because they exist in relation to others and are
informed by context, we constantly engage in negotiation
with ourselves and others to determine which roles will
be prioritized and how we will perform them” (p. 678).
The tensions, though, were compounded when we
considered them in relation to our academic identities.
Here we saw the juxtaposition between our sport man-
agement researcher identity and our sport fan identity.
Larena commented that she tended to downplay her sport
fan identity around other scholars, in particular women
or those involved in critical research. One reason she did
this was that she worried that this part of her would be
judged, knowing that professional sport is often critiqued:
JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015
So in some contexts I think it’s okay for us to be
sports fans and also women. And in other cases it’s
like “No, no I’m a serious academic. I’m not a fol-
lower of professional sports because I should know
better—the problems that there are with professional
sports.” So it’s very interesting how we both do that,
maybe in different types of circles, but we both are
constantly aware of who we’re around and [at] what
point do we reveal “I’m a sports fan.”
This reaction is somewhat similar to Learmouth
and Humphrey’s (2012) Jekyll and Hyde moments as
academics, in that one identity was hidden because it was
less socially acceptable. Interestingly, Larena played up
her sport fan role around other male sport management
researchers, as she felt this would add legitimacy to her
role in the academic field. As noted by one academic
reviewer, this process of downplaying a portion of our
identity can have methodological implications with
regard to how we select the methods we will use for
our studies. If we are perfectly honest with ourselves,
the idea of self-doubt throughout this entire research
and writing process has emphasized the role that our
dual identities (sport fan and sport researcher) do play
in implicitly guiding our research choices. For example,
concern regarding external perceptions of our legitimacy
in the sport management field may have curbed our use
of reflexivity in past research projects.
Furthermore, this tension of identities was particu-
larly jarring when we realized that as women and critical
sport management researchers who strive to challenge
taken-for-granted norms in the sport world, we were com-
plicit in reinforcing gender stereotypes among sport fans.
Shannon: As I am writing these notes, I also think
it is quite telling that I would like to be taken seri-
ously as a sport fan, but as I sit here and reflect, I
find myself judging a little bit as I see females come
in. This is coming at a time when I planning a sport
sociology syllabus—how ironic. Should I discuss I
may be a fraud? Ha ha. My view of and reflection on
other nonauthentic female sport fans was quite eye-
opening, and somewhat of a revelation to me. I also
think that through our discussions I was able to rec-
ognize that I “put on” multiple fan identities around
women. When I am with a group of women who
I “assume are not” sport fans (previously I would
have written “know are not”), I tend to reduce my
discussions of sport and sport content. I do not want
them to think I am bragging or trying to be one of
the boys. These assumptions are just that—assump-
tions. I first assume that these women do not like
sports (I have not taken the time to ask), and second
I assume they will judge me for my knowledge of
sport. I recognize now that I struggle with my sport
fan identity when with males and females, but in two
very different ways.
This quotation provides an example of where the
sport researcher identity may inform the personal sport

identity. In cases of self-study, where a researcher’s
experience with a phenomenon is explored, the sport
researcher lens may challenge ideals and norms that
may be present within a personal identity, such as being
a sport fan. Without diluting the sport fan experience,
the mutual influence of multiple identities (i.e., sport fan
and sport researcher) may help shape our analysis and
discussion of findings.
Discovered Shared Experiences
Often, although not exclusively, self-studies are con-
ducted individually. Although this process can be reveal-
ing and enlightening, there are concerns that one can
become myopic, or that one sees his or her experiences as
unrelated to others. As noted by May and Pattillo-McCoy
(2000), collaboration allows individuals to compare field
notes against those of another for the purpose of under-
standing where crossover and divergence occur. Through
a collaborative process, we came to understand that our
individual experiences were not unique. Moreover, we
hoped that perhaps other women, fans, and academics
could see that they were not alone in their experiences,
even though these experiences are rarely evident in the
academic literature.
Doing a collaborative self-ethnography allowed us
to appreciate that we were not abnormal, even though we
did not see or know of others like us. We both had some
anxiety about when to reveal our sport fan identities,
particularly around female colleagues. Although some of
our male sport management colleagues wore sport-team
branded merchandise on a regular basis, or routinely
talked about their favorite teams in social and work
settings, we did not see a lot of our female colleagues
doing the same thing. Thus, we felt to be normal, we,
as female academics, had to keep our sport enthusiasm
to ourselves in work settings. From our discussions, we
realized that if it was normal for men to do this, we could
do the same thing. In addition, we believe there are other
female academics who remain in the “sport fan closet”
(Larena), and who might feel more comfortable if they
knew that other women wanted to make their sport fan
identities visible.
As a result of sharing our experiences, we hope to
draw attention to the lived experiences of female, aca-
demic sport fans. We hope “it will allow people to see
themselves or other people and go, ‘Oh yeah, there are
women that can be and are real sports fans’” (Larena).
Specifically, perhaps our experiences can initiate further
research exploring sport fan experiences that encour-
ages acknowledgment of the interaction between sport
researcher and sport fan.
Conclusion
The use of self in the analysis of our personal gendered
sport fan experiences may contribute to the literature in
three purposeful ways. First, the sport fan literature has
JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015
Collaborative Self-Ethnography  507
typically been based on asking participants to respond
to prescribed data points. The collaborative self-eth-
nography approach opens the door to critical analysis
of two very specific women and their sport fan experi-
ence. Through the analysis and discussion phases of this
project, it has become quite clear that our experiences
converge and diverge at a number of points. As collab-
orative ethnographers, we want to ensure that neither of
our particular stories gets lost in the mix. Second, the
richness of the data comes from the discussions we had
regarding both of our stories and the understanding that
emerged through communicating our experiences with
one another. The comparison between researcher experi-
ences with sport fan experiences and those revealed in
prior research could foster new discussions and perhaps
new theory and understanding. Third, the use of two
researchers in this process provided a constant dialogue
that brought out components of our identities that we
might have never addressed ourselves. As researchers and
teachers in the field, we believe we are now both more
open to aspects of social identity, fan experience, and
gender issues that we hope will contribute to theoretical
and classroom discussion. The need to reflect on the role
of sport fan identity in our sport fan research has opened
our eyes to the benefits and challenges of acknowledging
(and embracing) these two identities.
We recognize that some of our experiences will
not “fit into a box” and may not be shared sentiments
among other sport scholars, sport fans, or other female
sport fans for that matter. However, as noted by Schim-
mel et al. (2007), a large majority of sport management
researchers are sport fans themselves. Not revealing or
acknowledging this identity within our research may be
creating a gap in knowledge that is ripe for exploration.
Recommendations
Self-studies, such as collaborative self-ethnography,
may not be appropriate for all projects or all researchers.
However, we encourage sport management researchers
to critically think about whether and how self-reflection
fits into their quantitative and qualitative methodological
approaches. Whether the approach is to implicitly reflect
on an identity and how it affects the research process or
to explicitly adopt a self-study methodology, we propose
the application of heightened reflectivity in our sport
management scholarship.
Specifically, with regard to self-study, we recom-
mend reading examples of autoethnography, self-ethnog-
raphy, and collaborative self-ethnography to determine a
reflective approach that best suits the research personality
and comfort. We also recommend that researchers engage
in regular discussions and conversations about their
experiences. These conversations should be recorded or
documented because this is where constant comparison
happens, discoveries can be made regarding shared and
different experiences, and initial analysis can happen.
The analysis starts when data collection commences, and
508  Kerwin and Hoeber
it is the critical piece of collaborative self-ethnography.
Moreover, it is important to note that before the com-
mencement of this work, the authors were simply col-
leagues who enjoyed discussion and socializing at annual
conferences. Similarity, in terms of our sport fandom,
brought us together to complete this research; however, it
was some of our differences that made the analysis most
fruitful. We highlight that it is our diversity that led to our
deepest discussion and thus one of the main benefits of a
collaborative methodology. In particular, the collabora-
tive nature of the methodology associated with our work
emphasizes the benefits of bringing together diverse (and
similar) individuals to collaborate and reflect on social
phenomenon (Adler & Adler, 1990, 1998; May & Pattillo-
McCoy, 2000). For those not interested or comfortable in
the concept of self-study, we put forward a call to reflect
on one’s personal role in sport and contemplate how
those lived roles may affect one’s research assumptions,
methods, analysis, and discussion of results.
There are a number of theoretical areas in sport
management that may be advanced by the application
of self-study methodology. For example, the study of
sport fandom is a logical place to continue exploration
through self-study. Both male and female sport manage-
ment scholars have self-identified as sport fans (Schim-
mel et al., 2007), and thus examining the nuances of the
impact of academia on sport fandom and sport fandom
on academia is an interesting area of study. Furthermore,
building off the work of Humberstone (2009) and explor-
ing whether and how our sport fan identity influences our
pedagogy may be a fruitful avenue of inquiry to better
inform our role in the classroom. Finally, as sport man-
agement academicians, we often take on service roles in
which we are involved in sport clubs or associations as
board members or volunteers. As such, we may self-study
and reflect on how our sport experiences influence our
sport research and vice versa.
References
Adler, P., & Adler, P. (1990). Backboards and blackboards:
College athletics and role engulfment. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Adler, P., & Adler, P. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescent culture
and identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Alvesson, M. (2003). Methodology for close-up studies—strug-
gling with closeness and closure. Higher Education, 46,
167–193. doi:10.1023/A:1024716513774
Alvesson, M., & Gabriel, Y. (2013). Beyond formulaic research:
In praise of greater diversity in organizational research
and publications. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 12, 245–263. doi:10.5465/amle.2012.0327
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodol-
ogy: New vistas for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015
Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Jour-
nal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 373–395.
doi:10.1177/0891241605280449
Anderson, L., & Austin, M. (2012). Auto-ethnography in leisure
studies. Leisure Studies, 31, 131–146. doi:10.1080/0261
4367.2011.599069
Ashworth, P. (1999). ‘Bracketing’ in phenomenology: Renounc-
ing assumptions in hearing about student cheating. Inter-
national Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12,
707–721. doi:10.1080/095183999235845
Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., & Delamont, S. (2003). Key themes
in qualitative research: Continuities and change. New
York, NY: AltaMira.
Aull Davis, C. (2008). Reflexive ethnography (2nd ed.). London,
UK: Routledge.
Bochner, A.R. (2001). Narrative’s virtues. Qualitative Inquiry,
7, 131–157. doi:10.1177/107780040100700201
Burawoy, M., Burton, A., Ferguson, A.A., Fox, K.J., Gamson,
J., Gartrell, N., . . . Ui, S. (1991). Ethnography unbound:
Power and resistance in the modern metropolis. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Cann, C., & DeMeulenaere, E. (2012). Critical, co-constructed
autoethnography. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies.
12, 146–158. doi:10.1177/1532708611435214
Clerke, T., & Hopwood, N. (2014). Doing ethnography in
teams: A case study of asymmetries in collaborative
research. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-
319-05618-0
Coghlan, A. (2012). An autoethnographic account of a cycling
charity challenge event: Exploring manifest and latent
aspects of the experience. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 17,
105–124. doi:10.1080/14775085.2012.729899
Collinson, J.A. (2003). Running into injury time: Distance
running and temporality. Sociology of Sport Journal, 20,
351–370.
Collinson, J.A. (2008). Running the routes together: Corun-
ning and knowledge in action. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 37, 38–61. doi:10.1177/0891241607303724
Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel
about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Ellis, C., Adams, T.E., & Bochner, A.P. (2011). Autoethnogra-
phy: An overview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research,
12(1), 10. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.
net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A.P. (2000). Autobiography, personal
narrative, reflexivity: Research as subject. In N.K. Denzin
& Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(2nd ed., pp. 733–768). London: SAGE.
Fleming, C., & Fullagar, S. (2007). Reflexive methodologies:
An autoethnography of the gendered performance of sport/
management. Annals of Leisure Research, 10, 238–256.
doi:10.1080/11745398.2007.9686765
Gearing, R.E. (2004). Bracketing in research: A typol-
ogy. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 1429–1452.
doi:10.1177/1049732304270394
Haynes, K. (2011). Tensions in (re)presenting the self in
reflexive autoethnographical research. Qualitative

Research in Organizations and Management, 6, 134–149.
doi:10.1108/17465641111159125
Hoeber, L., & Kerwin, S. (2013). Exploring the experiences
of female sport fans: A collaborative self-ethnography.
Sport Management Review, 16, 326–336. doi:10.1016/j.
smr.2012.12.002
Holt, N.L. (2003). Representation, legitimation, and autoeth-
nography: An autoethnographic writing story. Interna-
tional Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2, 18–28.
Humberstone, B. (2009). Sport management, gender and
the ‘bigger picture’: Challenging changes in Higher
Education—A partial auto/ethnographical account.
Sport Management Review, 12, 255–262. doi:10.1016/j.
smr.2009.03.004
Jones, K. (2008). Female fandom: Identity, sexism, and men’s
professional football in Europe. Sociology of Sport Jour-
nal, 25, 516–537.
Kodama, E., Doherty, A., & Popovic, M. (2013). Front line
insight: an autoethnography of the Vancouver 2010 volun-
teer experience. European Sport Management Quarterly,
13, 76–93. doi:10.1080/16184742.2012.742123
Learmouth, M., & Humphreys, M. (2012). Autoethnog-
raphy and academic identity: glimpsing business
school doppelgängers. Organization, 19, 99–117.
doi:10.1177/1350508411398056
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New-
bury Park, CA: SAGE.
May, R.B., & Pattillo-McCoy, M. (2000). Do you see what I
see? Examining a collaborative ethnography. Qualitative
Inquiry, 6, 65–87. doi:10.1177/107780040000600105
Miller, T. (2008). Sport, authenticity, confession. Cul-
tural Studies Critical Methodologies, 8, 540–542.
doi:10.1177/1532708608321576
Osborne, A. & Coombs, D. (2013). Performative sport fandom:
An approach to retheorizing sport fans. Sport in Society:
JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015
Collaborative Self-Ethnography  509
Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, 16, 672–681. doi:1
0.1080/17430437.2012.753523
Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: a method of inquiry. In N.
Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 923–948). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Rinehart, R. (2005). “Experiencing” sport management: The
use of personal narrative in sport management studies.
Journal of Sport Management, 19, 497–522.
Schimmel, K.S., Harrington, C.L., & Bielby, D.D. (2007). Keep
your fans to yourself: The disjuncture between sport stud-
ies’ and pop culture studies’ perspectives on fandom. Sport
in Society, 10, 580–600. doi:10.1080/17430430701388764
Sparkes, A. (2000). Autoethnography and narratives of self:
Reflections on criteria of action. Sociology of Sport Jour-
nal, 17, 21–43.
Sullivan, M.L. (1989). Getting paid: Youth crime and work in
the inner city. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Todd, S., & Kent, A. (2009). A social identity perspective on the
job attitudes of employees in sport. Management Decision,
47, 173–190. doi:10.1108/00251740910929777
Trussell, D.E. (2010). Gazing from the inside out during ethi-
cally heightening moments. Leisure Studies, 29, 377–395.
doi:10.1080/02614367.2010.523835
Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative
research. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice,
11, 80–96. doi:10.1177/1473325010368316
Wall, S. (2006). An autoenthography on learning about autoeth-
nography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
5(2), 146–160. Retrieved from https://ejournals.library.
ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/view/4396/3522
Zanker, C., & Gard, M. (2008). Fatness, fitness, and the moral
universe of sport and physical activity. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 25, 48–65.
Copyright of Journal of Sport Management is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.