GRU04228

Autophenomenography? Alternative uses of autobiographically based research.

Maree Gruppetta
School of Ecology and Lifelong Learning
University of Western Sydney

Abstract

There has been an increase in autobiographical based research techniques recently, particularly those
involving personal narratives. Autoethnography is usually the term of choice for studies connecting the
personal to the cultural (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). However, other forms of autobiographical research are
open to investigation. For instance, if one were to study a phenomenon rather than a ‘cultural place’ it
would be autophenomenographical rather than autoethnographical. The use of the author as subject
establishes researcher bias unequivocally. The author as first participant in a study becomes not only the
key informant of their own experience but also extends empathy to the experiences of the other
participants, increasing the in-depth nature of the study. This paper examines alternative uses of
autobiographical study, passing beyond the basic necessity of establishing a researcher’s bias.

Introduction

This is an exploratory paper, focused on investigating aspects of autobiographical qualitative research.

Autoethnography is increasingly accepted as an established methodology (Ellis & Bochner, 2000), and
other forms of autobiographical research are often used in anthropological studies. Phenomenology is
usually not autobiographical, due largely to the researcher’s goal of suspending their own perspective of
the phenomenon under investigation whilst engaging in the study (Thomas & Pollio, 2002). However,
the researcher’s bias must be stated within qualitative studies, as it is integral to ethical research (Burns,
1997; Charles & Mertler, 2002). Equally, the researcher’s interest in the phenomenon is quite often
related to their own personal history.

Autobiographical data provided by the researcher enhances understanding not only of the subject matter
covered, but often demonstrates the researcher’s reason for investigating the topic. Thus the personal link
between researcher and their subject matter is acknowledged, and this permits the researcher to explore
changes in their own perceptions throughout the study, hence the trend for autobiographical studies in
postmodern research representation.

Autobiographical studies

We are in the midst of a renewed interest in personal narrative, in life history

and in autobiography (Reed-Danahay, 1997:1)

Ellis (1997) refers to a crisis of postmodern representation which challenges the notions of scientific
knowledge and truth. She contends we have lost faith in the usefulness of rigid disciplinary boundaries
and language and that we question the value of social science research devoid of intuition and emotion
(Ellis, 1997). Lincoln and Denzin (2003) attribute the changes to a challenge to the Western and
masculine viewpoint of research, where indigenous, feminist, and border voices engaged in multiple
discourses. They also referred to the challenge of a “god’s-eye view of inquiry” (Lincoln & Denzin,
2003:3), with the emerging discourse surrounding the self-as-researcher and the researcher-as-self
resulting in the new genre of autoethnography.
Autobiographical based studies are not new. There is a long history of anthropologists publishing their
personal field notes as part of their research. Defined as “auto-anthropology” (Strathern, 1987, cited in

1
Reed-Danahay, 1997:5), these studies are not necessarily completely autobiographical, they simply refer
to anthropologists interjecting “personal experience into ethnographic writing” (Reed-Danahay, 1997:2).
Denzin (1989, cited in Reed-Danahay, 1997) defined several different forms of writing as ‘biographical
method’: autobiography, ethnography, autoethnography, biography, ethnography story, oral history, case
history, case study, life history, life story, self story, and personal experience story. Since then Denzin
and Lincoln (2003) have defined ethnosociology, ethnoethnography, and autoanthropology as additional
forms of biographical method.

For Denzin (1989, cited in Reed-Danahay, 1997) autoethnography is characterised by a blend of

autobiography and ethnography, where the writer does not adopt an ‘objective outsider’ viewpoint. It
differs from other research by incorporation of elements of the researcher’s own life experience when
writing about others. Denzin and Lincoln (2003) cite as evidence Kenyatta (1938), Tung (1930),
Nakeane (1970) and Yang (1972) as indigenous anthropologists writing ethnographically about their own
cultural group. Yet, only Yang (1972) “wrote a self-reflexive essay about the experience of doing an
autoethnography” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003: 184). Reed-Danahay (1997) differentiates between studies
that are truly autobiographical and those that merely reflect the researcher’s responses to the research at
hand, yet both are classified as autobiographical studies.

Reflexive ethnographies focus on a culture or sub-culture, and authors use their own experiences of the
culture to investigate the self and self-other interactions (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). Such ethnography is
often written by researchers from the Third and Fourth Worlds, where native ethnographers construct
their own stories and question the interpretations of outsiders who write about their culture. Ellis and
Bochner (2000) maintain the autoethnographic researcher is a full ‘insider’ by virtue of being a ‘native’.
Yet Reed-Danahay (1997:4) contends the autoethnographer is “not completely at home” within their
cultural identity. Although linked by culture to the “phenomenon of displacement” (Reed-Danahay,
1997:4) that positions them outside the dominant Western masculine discourse, they maintain a dual
identity. Neither insider nor outsider, the researcher is positioned both within the culture and as an
external observer, which then raises the question of truth within their research. “The voice of the insider
is assumed to be more ‘true’ than that of the outsider in current debate” (Reed-Danahay, 1997:4), hence
the need for other researchers not linked to a specific culture or sub-culture to locate a ‘key-informant’
(Gubrium & Holstein, 1997).

Within autoethnographic studies, the autobiographical notes of the author attempt to position the
researcher within the role of ‘key-informant’. The key informant, the “consummate insider” (Gubrium &
Holstein, 1997:27), is a full member of the culture or sub-cultures being studied, and as such is privy to
information that may be withheld from the researcher. The key informant also understands cultural
norms that may be misinterpreted by the researcher, and therefore is able to clarify and confirm the
researcher’s interpretation (Gubrium & Holstein, 1997). By these definitions, a researcher close enough
to their native culture to understand the cultural norms, and be privy to culturally specific information is
able to operate as their own key informant within the study.

It must be noted however, that these researchers, those operating as their own key informants, are not able
to speak for every individual within that culture. One Asian cannot speak for all Asians, one Aboriginal
cannot speak for all Aborigines, nor can one woman speak for all women (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998;
Settelmaier & Taylor, 2002). Nevertheless, they provide an authoritative voice that permits an insightful
glimpse of an otherwise hidden world. Denzin, (1997:87) concurs: “Ethnographers will continue to work
outward from their own biographies to seek and produce works that speak clearly and powerfully about
these worlds”.

Despite the insight provided within autobiographical studies, these new texts are often criticised as
narcissism and self-indulgence (Nader, 1993 cited in Denzin, 1997). Bruner (1993, cited in Denzin, 1997:
218) cautioned that the writer must always “guard against putting the personal self so deeply back into the
text that it completely dominates, so that the work becomes narcissistic and egotistical’. Authors still fret

2
about the potential contamination through subjectivity, that it is a blemish upon research that should be
minimised (Settelmaier & Taylor, 2002). Many contend that autobiographical research is a form of arts
based fictional writing which contributes to scientific dilettantism (Settelmaier & Taylor, 2002). That it
is research only for the pleasure or benefit of the researcher. Only when the issue confronted by the self
is shown to have relationship to, and bearing on, the context and ethos of a time, does the self-study
become research (Bullough & Pinngar, 2001, cited in Settelmaier & Taylor, 2002).

Ethnography
Within educational research, ethnography is often the method of choice as the ìschool is essentially a
cultural entityî (Burns, 1997:297). Ethnography has a broader perspective, it ìaccepts that human
behaviour occurs within a contextî (Burns, 1997, p.298) and that this context will affect that behaviour.
Therefore ìethnography studies the culturally shared, common sense perceptions of everyday
experiencesî (van Manen, 2000). An ethnographic design studies the behaviours of a culture-sharing
group (Creswell, 1998). The ethnographer records human behaviour in cultural terms, whereas
phenomenological study focuses on a concept or phenomenon (Creswell, 1998). Specifically the
phenomenological project focuses on the meaning of peopleís life experience toward a phenomenon,
describing the meaning of the lived experiences for several individuals about a concept or the
phenomenon (Creswell, 1998). If these individuals do not exist within a single cultural group,
ethnography is inappropriate. A study would not meet the ethnographic criteria due to the need for a
ënatural settingí. A concept Burns (1997) explains thusly:

Ethnographers recognise that the things people say and do depend on the social context in which they
find themselves. They urge, therefore, that social life be studied as it occurs, in natural settings rather
than ëartificialí ones created only for the purposes of research (Burns, 1997:301).

ìThe word ëethnographyí literally means writing about peopleî (Burns, 1997:297). However, this is a
broad subjective use of the term and does not define it effectively in terms of qualitative research
methodology. Technically the report of any study involving humans could be defined as ëwriting about
peopleí. Nor does this simplistic definition explain the intricate link between ethnography and
phenomenology, as the two are related but not interchangeable. It could be summed up as: where
phenomenology is a singular viewpoint (Thibodeau & MacRae, 1997), ethnography is concerned with the
shared viewpoint as ìethnographers are attempting to capture the social reality of a groupî (Burns, 1997:
299-300). Because the phenomenological approach is primarily an attempt to understand empirical
matters from the perspective of those being studied (Creswell, 1998:274) rather than from the perspective
of the researcher, few would consider an autobiographical study appropriate.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is the study of the lived experience from the unique perspective of the individual that is
engaged in the experience (Thibodeau & MacRae, 1997). It is a theoretical perspective where the
researcher is concerned with the way the participant views the world (van Manen, 2000) and their
perceptions of it. Byrne (2001:2) citing Leonard (1993) refers to Husserl (1900), a German philosopher,
as the ëfatherí of phenomenology. Husserl referred to phenomenology as a descriptive science that is
concerned with universal essences rather than facts (Lovat, 1995). Yet Husserl warned of avoiding the
temptation to speculate, hypothesize and judge, as with other research methods. In phenomenology, the
researcher must suspend their own judgements in order to learn to see what stands before their eyes
(Husserl, cited in Lovat, 1995). In spite of this directive, Lovat (1995) describes a method of teaching
religious studies where the student is immersed within the phenomena of a particular religion for a short
time. This would appear to be in contrast to the ideology of phenomenology, where an objective stance is
perceived as the goal. However, immersion in a phenomenon does not necessarily taint the
phenomenological methodology. The researcher assumes a subordinate position, channelling thoughts
back through the participant to gather their essential lived experience (Shultz, 2002).

3
Husserlís work on phenomenology was reconceived by Heidegger (Leonard, 1993, cited by Byrne,
2001:2). Heidegger acknowledged that gender, culture, history, and related life experiences ìprohibit an
objective viewpointî (Leonard, 1993 cited by Byrne, 2001:2) yet enable people to experience shared
practices and common meanings. These common meanings are possible because ìas human beings, our
meanings are co-developed through the experience of being born human, our collective life experiences,
our background, and the world in which we liveî (Byrne, 2001:2). Thomas and Pollio (2002:11) criticise
the current trend to describe participantsí experiences within the ìcontext of a cultureî. They assert that
traditional phenomenology searches for universal essences divorced from cultural context (Thomas &
Pollio, 2002).

Phenomenology has also been criticised because the vast majority of phenomenological researchers have
not participated in the processes that are the focus of their enquiries (Stockard 1987 cited by Richardson,
1999). These researchers ìtypically relied upon the secondhand accounts of distant correspondentsî
(Stockard, 1987 cited by Richardson, 1999, p.57), yet the point of phenomenological research is to
ëborrowí other peoplesí experiences and their reflections on their experiences ìin order to better
understand human experience, in the context of the whole of human experienceî (van Manen, 1990 cited
by Shultz, 2002:206). The goal of phenomenology is to provide ëvoiceí for the participant, not to interpret
or subjugate meaning through the lenses of the researcherís perception (Shultz, 2002), and Richardson
(1999) reiterates this point. He contends, ìphenomenological researchers are different from
contemporary ethnographers in this regard too, because they do not adopt a sceptical attitude towards the
statements that are made by their intervieweesî (Richardson, 1999:57).

Even so, all researchers interpret their data, that is the nature of research (Burns, 1997; Charles & Mertler,
2002; Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). Whilst phenomenology permits the researcher “to draw connections
between the everyday ways in which people make sense of the world” (Thibodeau & MacRae, 1997:67),
as individuals rather than through a collective cultural meaning, understanding is always an interpretation
(van Manen, 2000). Thomas and Pollio (2002) insist the goal of phenomenology is to provide
interpretation. The researcher must interpret the participants’ experience, as the participants see it, rather
than infer meaning through their own personal biases (Thomas & Pollio, 2002).

Creswell (1998) again suggests the researcher must bracket his or her own preconceived ideas about the
phenomenon to understand it through the voices of the informants. Yet contends that phenomenological
analysis requires the researcher to state his or her assumptions regarding the phenomenon under
investigation, and then bracket or suspend these preconceptions in order to fully understand the
experience of the subject and not impose their own hypothesis on the experience of the participant
(Creswell, 1998). Creswell (1998:55) also states “the researcher needs to decide how and in what way his
or own personal experiences will be introduced into the study”. This confirms the necessity of including
the researcher’s own perspectives and experiences within a phenomenological study.

Thomas and Pollio (2002) have developed an interesting method of bracketing their researchersí biases
and perceptions prior to phenomenological interviewing. The researcher is interviewed by an
experienced member of the research group concerning the phenomena under investigation. The
researcher then transcribes their own interview whilst searching for biases and perspectives toward the
phenomena. ìThe goal of the bracketing interview is to highlight to the researcher his/her pre-
understandings about the topic of investigationî (Thomas & Pollio, 2002:33). Once noted, the researcher
is then expected to ensure their pre-conceptions about the topic are set aside during the interviewing
process. Thomas and Pollio (2002) also include ongoing discussion of the study with the
phenomenological research team. This addresses changes to perceptions throughout the research process
and permits reflection by the researcher. ìBracketing is not a one-time eventî (Thomas & Pollio,
2002:33), a researcherís biases are only temporarily suspended whilst interviewing, the research demands
and ongoing cycle of reflection throughout the study in order to maintain awareness of these issues.

4
As previously stated, phenomenology is concerned with the way people perceive their world (van Manen,
2000), yet as researchers we also have perceptions of our world, and these are shaped and/or restricted by
our own experiences. We must acknowledge these biases in order to become effective researchers.

Researcher Bias

We’re sighted, but blind like those men in that our knowledge is limited:
We seek the perceptions of other people from different circumstances,
In order to discover the limitations of our own (Myers, 2004)

The quote above refers to Buddha’s well know tale about the ‘Blind men and the elephant’, turned into a
poem by John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887). While noting the politically incorrect use of the term ‘blind’,
the concepts relating to perception contained within this tale/poem relate to many fields beyond the
theological debate of initial reference. As an example, Tavris and Wade (2004) also use the tale as a
metaphor for interpreting psychology.

The tale in summary discusses six visually impaired men, who each tried to discover what an elephant
looked like by touch. The first experienced only the elephant’s side, and thought it felt like a wall; the
second felt only the tusk and thought it was a spear; the third touched only the trunk and thought it was a
snake; the fourth investigated the leg and thought it a tree; the fifth stroked the ear and thought it a fan;
and the sixth grasped the tail and thought it a rope. The men argued amongst themselves and could not
agree, for each was sure their sense of the elephant was correct. Technically each was right, for the
elephant was as they saw it, from the limited perspective of their own investigation. Even if they had
collaborated and combined their views, the elephant they constructed would be very different from an
elephant as it really exists.

Thomas and Pollio (2002) use similar metaphors in relation to phenomenology. They put forward the
case of ‘ginger’ a cartoon dog who only hears his own name within the full sentences that his master
speaks. Equally, they state that “if a lion could talk, we could not understand him” (Wittgenstein, cited in
Thomas & Pollio, 2002:22). Their point relates to the issue of interpretation, that we each interpret others
on the basis of our own understandings, and only when the researcher is open to new ideas is
phenomenological interviewing possible (Thomas & Pollio, 2002).

Interviewers are generally expected to keep their ‘selves’ out of the interview process. “Neutrality is the
byword” (Gubrium & Holstein, 2003:31). However, it is also argued that all research is ideologically
driven. “There is no value-free or bias-free design” (Janesick, 2003:56). Denzin and Lincoln (1998:23)
confirm that behind every interpretive study stands the biographically, multiculturally situated researcher,
“who speaks from a particular class, racial, cultural, and ethnic community perspective”. Within that
multi-situated researcher there are layers. Settelmaier and Taylor (2002) refer to a ‘top-layer’ of self-
knowledge that is always present, a layer constructed and never really questioned. Yet beneath this layer
are other issues that have been hidden from sight, these come to the surface when one engages in critical
self-reflectivity in combination with the act of writing (Settelmaier & Taylor, 2002). “The research self is
not separable from the lived self. Who we are and what we can be, what we can study, and how we can
write about what we study are all tied” (Richardson, 2003:197). Dealing with one’s own biases before
interpreting and representing others becomes an important question of research ethics, we need to ask the
question ‘who is the self that does the research?’ (Settelmaier & Taylor, 2002) How does my life history,
experiences, issues and stories from my life affect my research and my attitude toward what I hear from
the participants? (Settelmaier & Taylor, 2002)
Many researchers now acknowledge that they are not disinterested but rather deeply invested in their
studies, personally and profoundly (Bullough & Pinngar, 2001, cited in Settelmaier & Taylor, 2002).
Tolich and Davidson (1999) suggest that a researcher should sort through their random collection of
clippings and categorise them, analysing what topics attracted their attention and why. “If you are what
you eat, then researchers must be what they collect” (Tolich & Davidson, 1999:11). Tolich and Davidson
(1999) suggest the best place to start your research is with your ‘personal biography’, an explanation of

5
who and where you are. They also discuss the need get “out of our own way” (Tolich & Davidson,
1999:183), to overcome ourselves, our own prior knowledge when crossing the boundaries into
qualitative research.

Qualitative researchers identify their biases and ideology as part of their conceptual frame for the study,
within qualitative research “there is no attempt to pretend that research is value free” (Janesick, 2003:56).
The idea that research should be ‘objective’ and free from emotive influence (Tolich & Davidson, 1999)
is common. Quantitative studies call for a more objective view (Janesick, 2003), and few include the
researcher’s bias (Settelmaier & Taylor, 2002). But, “how can your experiences in the field not have a
profound influence on what and how you write?” (Tolich and Davidson, 1999:62) Rather than an
invisible author, where the author’s voice is presumed absent from the truth of the context, we “see the
author’s hand there, albeit in carefully disguised form” (Lincoln, 1997:39). It is impossible to set aside
our own biases completely, and indeed not desirable (Thomas & Pollio, 2002). We cannot lose ourselves
and become the other person, the best we can do is mediate between the two of us within meaningful and
empathic dialogue (Thomas & Pollio, 2002).

Empathy

Ellis and Bochner (2000) contend that qualitative research is characterised by empathetic understanding
and personal involvement. Rather than narcissism Ellis and Bochner (2000) assert that the self-
questioning required of autoethnography is extremely difficult. Honest autobiographical exploration
generates a lot of fear and doubt. There is emotional pain and the vulnerability of revealing yourself, and
having no control over how readers interpret what you have written, nor are you able to take it back. “It’s
hard not to feel your life is being critiqued as well as your work. It can be humiliating” (Ellis & Bochner,
2000:738). Despite this researchers are ìwilling to take more risks and write about personal experiences,
which many conventional ethnographers object toî (de Laine, 2000:98). However, research practitioners
are warned about becoming over-involved with those in their care (Tolich & Davidson, 1999:16). The
worst sin is to be ëtoo personalí (Behar, 1996:13, cited in de Laine, 2000:98).

De Laine (2000) contends that the trend in contemporary fieldwork is for more participation and less
detachment. The gap between researcher and participant has closed (De Laine, 2000) although she warns
of the resulting ethical dilemmas. ìThe researcher who demonstrates empathy and care and engages on
an emotional level with subjects can enter the ground of the therapist, but without the same trainingî (de
Laine, 2000:2). This situation creates a dilemma where the researcher may inadvertently ëdo harmí due to
lack of training. It also raises ethical dilemmas where the relationship between the researcher and
participant becomes personal. A friendship between researcher and participant may facilitate access to
confidences that are private and secret, which can ìmake problematic disclosure and publication of
personal informationî (de Laine, 2000:2). However, Ellis and Berger (2003) dispute this, they contend
that “researcher involvement can help subjects feel more comfortable sharing information and close the
hierarchical gap between researchers and respondents that traditional interviewing encourages” (159).
Thomas and Pollio (2002) agree, they refer to interviews as cathartic, and cite incidents of participants
sending cards and flowers to the interviewers to thank them for the beneficial release of emotions.

It is assumed that first person narratives are valuable, that individuals have access to their own
experiences, and these are the site of personal meaning. Epiphanies, in the form of particular experiences,
are assumed to leave great marks or scars on a person (Denzin, 2001), and individuals are assumed to
have public and private authentic selves, where the private self is the real self. Yet, “there is no essential
self or private, or real self behind the public self. There are only different selves, different performances,
different ways of being” (Denzin, 2001:28) in a social situation. Indeed, in our “interview society”
(Denzin, 2001: 28) the confessional mode of discourse is often used as entertainment.

Researchers are directed to the study and collection of the personal experience and self-stories people tell
one another about the important events in their lives (Denzin, 1989:43, cited in Denzin, 1997:47). These

6
narratives work outward from the researcher’s biography, entangling his or her tales of the self with the
stories told by others and “how our subjectivity becomes entangled in the lives of others is and has always
been our topic” (Denzin, 1997:27). Ellis and Berger (2003) agree, explaining a ‘double subjectivity’
abounds in interviewing, where each participant’s feelings, thoughts and attitudes are affected by the
reciprocity between the participants, so too can the personal and social identities of the interviewer and
the interviewee become important factors and change the relationship.

Academia calls for an impartial observer, yet we search for the epiphanies of our subjects but fail to
acknowledge our own. Intelligence breaks through, the ‘ah ha’ experience is acknowledged, provided it
is related to intelligence not to emotion. But what of our emotions, these are meant to be buried – at what
cost?

Investigators seek ways of demonstrating to their audiences their historical and geographic situatedness,
their personal investments in the research, various biases they bring to the work, their surprises and
undoings in the process of the research endeavour, the ways in which their choices of literary tropes lend
rhetorical force to the research report and/or the ways in which they have avoided or suppressed certain
points of view (Gergen & Gergen, 2000:1027).

But do they include their feelings?

Kvale (1996, cited in Thomas & Pollio, 2002) suggests the success of phenomenological interviewing
depends on the sensitivity of the interviewer. Thomas and Pollio (2002) again discuss the necessity of
caring for participants as we witness the essences of their experiences. However, Leith (2004) discusses
the consequences of such witnessing in regard to journalists recording events in the field. Her reference
to “compassion fatigue” (Leith, 2004:xix) relates to Behar’s ‘(1996) notion of the ‘vulnerable observer’.
Behar (1996:5) refers to anthropology as “the most fascinating, bizarre, disturbing, and necessary form of
witnessing left”, and also one that breaks your heart. Yet, this could be true of any research. Jaded as the
public has become to constant bombardment of war and atrocity in the media, journalists need to go to
extremes to find something new to entrance viewers (Leith, 2004). In the process they risk burning
themselves out emotionally, and some have even committed suicide as a result of their experiences
(Leith, 2004).

Researchers too search for new ideas, new fields to study, new cultures and sub-cultures to explore, and
new ways to explore them. Disenchanted with the results of quantitative research (Thomas & Pollio,
2002), postmodern researchers experiment with qualitative methods without acknowledgement of the
affect on themselves. Some level of mutually negotiated self-disclosure is fundamental to the research
relationship (Church, 1995). However, self-disclosure requires an emotional commitment from the
researcher. This may be difficult for some. Church (1995) refers to her own experience of research
training, where subjectivity and emotion was schooled into hiding. Whilst being educated into the
necessary skills to undertake a research project she found the process had simultaneously stripped her of
the emotional attachments which would actually make it possible (Church, 1995).

Personal narratives have long been tradition in anthropology, and human history (Behar, 1995). It seems
we are turning full circle, removing ourselves from the objective viewpoint and returning to the story
telling of long ago. Gergen and Gergen (2000:217) agree, accounts of experience seem more adequately
understood as the outcome of a particular textual/cultural history in which people learn “to tell stories of
their lives to themselves and others”. We connect with each other in past and present contexts (Thomas &
Pollio, 2002) and researchers must confirm this connection, not only with their participants but with
themselves. Postructuralism asserts “There is no such thing as removing the observers from the
knowledge acquisition process, since to do so would be like trying to see without eyes” (Stivers,
1993:311, cited in Church, 1995:5). The researcher must acknowledge the self, not just the academic
self, but also the emotional self. Subjectivity is not possible without emotional connection and there is a
place in academe for the emotional voice (Church, 1995).

7
Autophenomenology

Knowing that any new form of writing that goes beyond autoethnography
can always be undone (Denzin, 1997:28)

Theoretically autophenomenology is not only achievable, it can be justified. The phenomenological

researcher is required to promote an “air of equality” (Thomas & Pollio, 2002: 24) rather than an air of
superiority due to age, position, power or prior knowledge, and the participant is the real authority. Yet
how can the researcher be ‘equal’ if they are not willing to share the participant’s position by becoming a
participant themselves? It is not until “we begin to talk from our own dark recesses can we fully
appreciate the risk for others…to open up to us” (Rockhill, 1987:13, cited in Church, 1995:67). Thomas
and Pollio (2002:4) assert participants must be “co-researchers not subjects” in successful
phenomenological studies. A point that can be taken one step further to include the researcher as a
participant.

The technique used by Thomas and Pollio (2002) to bracket the researcher’s perspectives and biases can
be adapted effectively to an autobiographical study. The researcher simply begins by analysing their own
perspective of the phenomenon prior to beginning interviewing. This analysis can be also used to fine
tune the questions or prompts the researcher intends to use in interviews. The researcher either writes or
tapes their own responses to the topic and then analyses them for traces of bias. Once identified, the bias
can be suspended (bracketed) during interviews with participants in order to fulfil the requirements of a
phenomenological study. In addition, the researcher’s journal can serve a similar purpose to the ongoing
reflective discussion with the research team, identifying shifts in viewpoints throughout the study. Thus
the criteria for phenomenology can be met and researcher bias clearly identified.

Conclusion

The researcher is the instrument and qualitative research is always from someone’s perspective (Tolich &
Davidson, 1999). The affect of researcher ‘assumptions and biases’, and the “value judgements of the
researcher are an important (and often overlooked) ingredient” (Tolich & Davison, 1999: 42) in research.
Therefore that perspective, those values, assumptions and biases should be stated from the outset.
Autobiographical research allows us to explore aspects of our interpretive horizons (Roth, 2000 cited in
Settelmaier & Taylor, 2002) and thus of our biases. These forms of self-exposure have recently led to the
flourishing of autoethnography where “investigators explore in depth the ways in which their personal
histories saturate the ethnographic inquiry” (Gergen & Gergen, 2000:1028). But our personal histories
and biases saturate all research inquiry. Inclusion of the researcher’s autobiography, their prior history
and interest in the topic, as well as changes to their thoughts and feelings throughout the research journey,
will enrich the study. The researcher as first participant is able to increase the trust between researcher
and participant, and equalise their relationship. Researcher bias is established, and yet the results are
further enhanced because readers are given a contextual frame for the research interpretation. This paper
examined the possibility of autophenomenological studies, however, further investigation toward
including autobiographical information about the researcher in other forms of qualitative studies is
recommended.
Reference List

Behar, R. (1996). The vulnerable observer: anthropology that breaks your heart. Beacon Press: Boston.
rd
Burns, R.B. (1997). Introduction to research methods (3 Ed). Longman Australia: Melbourne.
Byrne, M.M. (2001). Understanding life experiences through a phenomenological approach to research.
AORN Journal, April. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0FLS/4_73/73308177/print.jhtml
Charles, C.M. & Mertler, C.A. (2002). Introduction to educational research (4th Ed). Allyn & Bacon:
Boston.
Church, K. (1995). Forbidden narratives: Critical autiobiography as social science. OPA:Amsterdam.
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Sage:
8
 London.
De Laine, M. (2000). Fieldwork, participation and practice: Ethics and dilemmas in qualitative research.
Sage: London.
Denzin, N.K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualitative Research, 1
(1) 23-46.
Denzin, N.K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st Century. Sage:
London.
nd
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2003). Strategies of qualitative research (2 Ed). Sage: London.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Sage: London.
Ellis, C. (1997). Evocative enthography: writing emotionally about our lives. 115-142. In Tierney, W.G.
& Lincoln, Y.S. (1997). Representation and the text: Re-framing the narrative voice. State
University of New York Press: Albany.
Ellis, C. & Bochner, A.P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject.
733-768. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds) (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd
Ed). Sage: London.
Ellis, C. & Berger, L. (2003).Their story/my story/our story: Including the researcher’s experience in
interview research. 157-186 In Gubrium, J.F. & Holstein, J.A. (Eds)(2003). Postmodern
interviewing. Sage: London.
Gergen, M.M. & Gergen, K.J. (2000). Qualitative inquiry: Tensions and transformations. 1025-1046 In
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds) (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd Ed). Sage:
London.
Gubrium, J.F. & Holstein, J.A. (2003). From the individual interview to the interview society. 21-51 In
Gubrium, J.F. & Holstein, J.A. (Eds)(2003). Postmodern interviewing. Sage: London.
Gubrium, J.F. & Holstein, J.A. (1997). The new language of qualitative method. OUP:New York.
Janesick, V.J. (2003). The choreography of qualitative research design: minuets, improvisations, and
crystallization. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2003). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd Ed).
Sage: London.
Leith, D. (2004). Bearing witness: The lives of war correspondents and photojournalists. Random House:
Australia.
Lincoln, Y.S. (1997). Self, subject, audience, text: living at the edge, writing in the margins. In Tierney,
W.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1997). Representation and the text: Re-framing the narrative voice. State
University of New York Press: Albany.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Denzin, N.K. (Eds)(2003). Turning points in qualitative research: Tying knots in a
handkerchief. Altamira: New York
Lovat, T. (1995). Teaching and learning religion: A phenomenological approach. Social Science Press:
Wentworth Falls.
Myers, P. (2004). The “perspectivist” metaphor from India: 4 blind men feeling the elephant.
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/perspectivism.html
Reed-Danahay, D.E. (Ed.)(1997). Auto/Ethnography: Rewriting the social and the self. Berg: New York.

Richardson, L. (2003). Poetic representation of Interviews. 187-283 In Gubrium, J.F. & Holstein, J.A.
(Eds)(2003). Postmodern interviewing. Sage: London.
Richardson, J.T. (1999). The concept and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of Educational
Research, 69 (1) 53-82.
Settelmaier, E. & Taylor, P. (2002). Using autobiography to map an interpretive researcher’s sensitivities
toward her subject(s). Presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Science Education
Research Association, Townsville, Queensland, July 11-14.
Shultz, R.A. (2002). Illuminating realitites: a phenomenological view from two underachieving gifted
learners. Roeper Review, 24 (4).
Tavris, C. & Wade, C. (2004). “The blind men and the elephant” as a metaphor for psychology.
http://home.ku.edu.tr/~psyc100/whyeleph.htm
Thibodeau, J. & MacRae, J. (1997). Breast cancer survival: a phenomenological inquiry. Advances in
9
 Nursing science, 19 (4) 65-75.
Thomas, S.P. & Pollio, H.R. (2002). Listening to patients: A phenomenological approach to nursing
research and practice. Springer: New York.
Tierney, W.G. (2003). Undaunted courage: life history and the post modern challenge. In Denzin, N.K. &
Lincoln, Y.S. (2003). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd Ed). Sage: London.
Tolich, M. & Davidson, C. (1999). Starting fieldwork: An introduction to qualitative research in New
Zealand. Oxford University Press: New Zealand.
van Manen, M. (2000). Phenomenology online: Glossary. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
http://www.atl.akberta.ca/po/glossary.cfm?range=All

10