• Anne Bunde-BirousteEmail author
  • Fiona Byrne
  • Lynn Kemp
Reference work entry


Autoethnography is a branch of ethnography that enables a practitioner to also be a researcher and vice versa. While ethnography is concerned with the descriptive documentation of the sociocultural relationships within a given research environment, the researcher remains an observer of the situation under study. Autoethnography enables the researcher to maximize her (his) personal involvement with the action. The researcher’s lived experience is an integral part of the learning; her engagement with the context, stakeholders, and processes, along with her reflections on that engagement, is paramount to the autoethnographic methodology. Autoethnography is considered to have two clear branches: emotive and analytic. Emotive autoethnography seeks to bring the readers to an empathetic understanding of the writer’s experience. Analytic autoethnography allows for the researcher’s engagement in the situation to be included in the analysis, adding to the theoretical understanding of the social processes under study by making more interpretive use of available data. Analytic autoethnography is, therefore, particularly useful for the design phases of community-based action research in areas such as community development, health promotion, and social work. This chapter will provide an overview of methods involved in autoethnography, with focus on analytic autoethnography as an “action-oriented” method for social science researchers. Advantages and limitations will be discussed and illustrated with lived experience from the authors’ study of complex community interventions.


Autoethnography Health promotion Translational research Analytic reflexivity Crystallization, practice-based research, program design 



The authors gratefully acknowledge support from Adjunct Professor, Dr Patricia Bazeley, Research Support P/L, Translational Research and Social Innovation group Western Sydney University for her guidance, editorial contributions and critical feedback.


  1. Acosta S, Goltz H, Goodson P. Autoethnography in action research for health education practitioners. Action Res. 2015;13(4):411–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen-Collinson J. Intention and epochē in tension: autophenomenography, bracketing and a novel approach to researching sporting embodiment. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2011;3(1):48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson L. Analytic autoethnography. J Contemp Ethnogr. 2006;35(4):373–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asselin ME. Insider research: issues to consider when doing qualitative research in your own setting. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2003;19(2):99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson P. Rescuing autoethnography. J Contemp Ethnogr. 2006;35(4):400–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkinson PA, Coffey A, Delamont SS. Key themes in qualitative research: continuities and change. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  7. Bazeley P, Kemp L. Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res. 2012;6(1):55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunde-Birouste A. Kicking goals for social change: an autoethnographic study exploring the feasibility of developing a program that harnesses the passion for the World Game to help refugee youth settle into their new country. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of NSW, Sydney; 2013.Google Scholar
  9. Chang H, Ngunjiri FW, Hernandez KC. Collaborative autoethnography. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  10. Cibangu SK, Hepworth M. The uses of phenomenology and phenomenography: a critical review. Libr Inf Sci Res. 2016;38(2):148–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke AE. Situational analyses: grounded theory mapping after the postmodern turn. Symb Interact. 2003;26(4):553–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coffey A. Autobiography. In: Lewis-Beck MS, Bryman A, Liao TF, editors. The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2004.Google Scholar
  13. Corbin Dwyer S, Buckle JL. The space between: on being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8(1):54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Creswell JW. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson; 2008.Google Scholar
  15. Denzin N, Lincoln Y. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994.Google Scholar
  16. Duncan M. Autoethnography: critical appreciation of an emerging art. Int J Qual Methods. 2004;3(4):28–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellis C. The ethnographic I: a methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  18. Ellis CS, Bochner AP. Analyzing analytic autoethnography: an autopsy. J Contemp Ethnogr. 2006;35:429–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellis C, Adams T, Bochner A. Autoethnography: an overview. Forum: Qual Soc Res. 2010;12(1):10.Google Scholar
  20. Funnell S, Rogers P. Purposeful Program Theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Fransisco: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.Google Scholar
  21. Green JL, Skukauskaite A, Baker WD. Ethnography as epistemology. In: Arthur J, Waring M, Coe R, Hedges L, editors. Research methods and methodologies in education. 1st ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2012.Google Scholar
  22. Hasselgren B, Beach D. Phenomenography – a “good-for-nothing brother” of phenomenology? Outline of an analysis. Higher Educ Res Dev. 1997;16(2):191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kanuha VK. “Being” native versus “going native”: conducting social work research as an insider. Soc Work. 2000;45(5):439–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kemp L, Chavez R, Harris-Roxas B, Burton N. What’s in the box? Issues in evaluating interventions to develop strong and open communities. Community Dev J. 2008;43(4):459–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liamputtong P. Performing qualitative cross-cultural research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  26. Linder C, Marshall D. Reflection and phenomenography: towards theoretical and educational development possibilities. Learn Instr. 2003;13(3):271–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maréchal G. Autoethnography. In: Mills AJ, Durepos G, Wiebe E, editors. Encyclopedia of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010.Google Scholar
  28. Pensoneau-Conway SL, Toyosaki S. Automethodology: tracing a home for praxis-oriented ethnography. Int J Qual Methods. 2011;10(4):378–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Richardson L. Writing: a method of inquiry. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994. p. 519–29.Google Scholar
  30. Vryan K. Expanding analytic autoethnography and enhancing its potential. J Contemp Ethnogr. 2006;35(4):405–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wall S. An autoethnography on learning about autoethnography. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(2):9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public Health and Community Medicine, UNSWSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Translational Research and Social Innovation (TReSI) Group, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical ResearchWestern Sydney UniversityLiverpoolAustralia

Personalised recommendations