Application text for presentation at The Art Text, Thommy Eriksson, 30th July 2009

Self- and auto-ethnography – a methodology for observing, analyzing

and writing on the personal creative practice
In my Ph D candidate research project, I study the representation of virtuality in images. The intention is to write a
poetic of virtuality, reflecting on how signs – in this case, signs of virtuality – are established and stabilized in our
visual culture. I study these issues through the observation and analysis of my own work practice. I have engaged in
collaboration projects/productions with different partners; designing and finalizing visual representations of virtuality,
and at the same time following my own work process. My research boarders to artistic research, and I am using self-
and auto-ethnography, combined with grounded theory, semiotics and hermeneutics, to establish a rigorous and
methodological “workflow” from observation to final text. I position my study as “academic” and “scientific”,
claiming my status as a researcher. I see the movement from observation to final text as a continuous flow; analysis
and writing starts at the very moment of observation; observation remains until the final word has been laid down.

I am a Ph D candidate within the group Digital Representation, associated to Fotohögskolan, and employed at the IT
University, Chalmers University of Technology. My research is highly multi-disciplinary, straddling between Applied
IT, digital photography, visual culture and computer graphics. My study has involved the following projects.
o A 20-minute computer generated science show (Rymdlust) for Universeum in Göteborg.
o Computer generated moving images for Solen, månen och den röda planeten, a science show series for kids,
produced by Utbildningsradion.
o Computer generated moving images for Postcards from the future, a 40-minute science fiction drama produced by
an Hollywood independent movie production company.
o Computer generated interface for a virtual laboratory, developed by Stanford University, Chalmers University of
technology and University of Gothenburg.
o Computer generated imagery for an interactive presentation of the roman temple Via Tecta, partly financed by the
Swedish Institute in Rome.

Self- and auto-ethnography is a rather new branch within ethnography. Ethnography is the study of everyday social
interactions and practices; their nature and their cultural meaning for the people involved. Ethnography takes place in
“the field” – that is, it involves the study of people in authentic situations. In traditional ethnography the researcher
study a group of people that is in some way estranged, and typically involves “breaking in”. In contrast, self-
ethnography involves the study of the researchers own group; a group in which the researcher is an established
participant. It typically involves “breaking out” of the taken for granted cultural and social structures within this group,
understanding them from within. Auto-ethnography is the similar study of yourself. Self- and auto-ethnography
inevitably blends into each other; they are usually incorporating the observation of not only actions and interactions,
but also feelings and thoughts. Traditionally, self- and auto-ethnography are used to study dramatic life events such as
deaths and divorces, but are an efficient and intriguing way to study much more mundane everyday events such as
creative design processes.

As an alternative or supplement to other methods of investigating creative processes – for example media artefact
analysis or interviews – self- and auto-ethnography, with its more or less direct access to the creative mind(s), can give
valuable research data. The methods have been criticized though.
Parts of the attacks have been on the same ground as attacks on other methods of qualitative research; that it is not
repeatable and not possible to generalize. The counter attack can be summarized in the claim that not all research must
be generalizable; this closely connects with the analysis and writing up of observations. The concept of thick
description suggests that data should not be reduced to general theories or simplified conclusions. I argue for a middle-
path where the observations are thickly described, while being analyzed using grounded theory, hermeneutics and
semiotics. It could be said that the scaffolding of the scientific text remains evident; the final text is not a neatly
streamlined theory construct, but rather a self reflective and self critical account of the continues flow from
observation to writing.
Self- and auto-ethnography has also been criticized as being to emotional, to narcissistic and lacking evidence.
But, thoughts and feelings are also “data”; but careful self-criticism need to be brought into action when assessing
these observations. The risk of narcissism is closely related to the lack of generalizability, and the balance between on
one hand avoiding un-grounded general claims and on the other hand avoiding irrelevant private details is potentially
difficult to manage. The lack of evidence is actually not unique for self- and auto-ethnography; for example, an
interview statement done by an informant is not evidence either. There can actually be documented a sort of
“evidence” in the form of artefacts; for example sketches and audio recordings of design discussions.
Finally, I see an additional potential risk in self- and auto-ethnography; since the observer and the observed are
partly the same individual, there could be a contamination of the research issue upon the observations – looking for
data can be a self-fulfilling venue. Once again, heavy self-criticism and self-reflection – continuously from observation
through analysis to final write up – is called upon to challenge this problem.