What's wrong with autoethnography?

Autoethnography

The first reference I can find to the use of Autoethnography (AE) in the title of a scholarly paper is in the late 1970s (Hayano, 1979). However, before that time many anthropologists might be considered to write in a style and approach similar to what emerged as contemporary AE.

Through the mid to late 1990s Carolyn Ellis and her partner Art Bochner took a lead in promoting AE with publications, theorising and methodological exploration of AE. By 2020 the Journal of Autoethnography was launched published by University of California Press with founding editors Tony E. Adams & Andrew F. Herrmann. Note that Adams co-edited the Handbook of Autoethnography with Ellis (2016). The current editorial board can be viewed here Editorial | Journal of Autoethnography | University of California Press with Ellis and Bochner as associate editors at the time of writing and an overwhelming majority of board members with North American affiliations.

What’s the problem?

AE is considered an established qualitative method. I have published an AE (Edwards, 2017) and also a meta synthesis of AEs (2022) considered the first meta synthesis of AE studies though I am open to be proven wrong on this claim. All PhD candidates I supervise are encouraged to write a chapter that is an AE to place their research in context. So, I clearly have nothing against AE.

Nonetheless, I have also published a critique of AE (Edwards, 2021). This was followed by Sparkes (2024) and Grydehøj (2025) among others. One point of contention we raised is regards consent from people described in the AE. We exist in relational contexts. It is rare to find an AE that does not include reference to others.

My critical paper (Edwards, 2021) was prompted by attending a presentation titled AE by a colleague where she openly spoke about dissatisfaction with a role I held and she not only misrepresented the situation but at one point referred to me by name and pointed at me in spite of starting the paper by advising that all people mentioned would remain anonymous. I wrote to her at some time later raising the concern, and she denied mentioning me. I sent her a snippet from the recording of the presentation where she used my name multiple times. She then defended her right to name me.

Can we write or present about people without their permission?

Usually no. If they are dead then probably yes. In my AE (Edwards, 2017) I referred to sexist interactions across my career in universities that left me puzzled and even at times wounded including being called a witch with reference to my broomstick, patted on the thigh, and described as middle aged when I had just turned 30. I wrote it as a retrospective AE and many of the people whose behaviour towards me I described had died, retired, or were very unlikely to recall either me, or the interaction I related. However, I do have some discomfort that usually if we include people in our papers we consult them and seek their permission whether as a courtesy or because of the requirements for ethical clearance.

Must an AE be theoretical?

I consider the answer to be yes. As a reviewer for journals I have advised rejection of many AE manuscripts in which the author simply emoted onto the page in what sometimes were compelling stories but many times were boring and unedifying rants. AE is often highly emotional. As Grydehøj proposed “…writing can sometimes not only riskily delve into and express but also produce and reproduce difficult, painful, and uncomfortable emotions.” (Grydehøj, 2025, p. 10). In AE these must be considered critically as well as experienced, and theoretical considerations are essential.

Final thoughts

According to Google scholar between 2000 and 2005 there were 225 publications with AE in the title (note I conducted the search using autoethnography not auto-ethnography). Between 2005 and 2010 there are 584 results, and in the last 15 years more than 6000. I hope we can agree to continually review and critique AE. To appreciate it, to use it and to support it but also to expect AE to be methodologically rich, and critically robust.

References

Adams, T. E., Jones, S. H., & Ellis, C. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of autoethnography. Routledge.

Bochner, A., Ellis, C., & Ellis, C. (1996). Evocative autoethnography: Writing emotionally about our lives. Composing Ethnography, 13-45.

Edwards, J. (2022). Discrimination and Exclusion in Higher Education Is Reflected in Multiple Autoethnographies. Qualitative Report, 27(10).

Edwards, J. (2021). Ethical autoethnography: Is it possible?. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1609406921995306.

Edwards, J. (2017). Narrating experiences of sexism in higher education: A critical feminist autoethnography to make meaning of the past, challenge the status quo and consider the future. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(7), 621-634.

Ellis, C. (1997). Evocative autoethnography: Writing emotionally about our lives. Representation and the text: Re-framing the narrative voice, 115-139.

Ellis, C. (1999). Heartful autoethnography. Qualitative health research, 9(5), 669-683.

Grydehøj, A. (2025). Moments of silence: Ethics and harm in autoethnography. Folk, Knowledge, Place, 2(1).

Hayano, D. M. (1979). Auto-ethnography: Paradigms, problems, and prospects. Human organization, 38(1), 99-104.

Sparkes, A. C. (2024). Autoethnography as an ethically contested terrain: some thinking points for consideration. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 21(1), 107-139.