International Journal of Social Research Methodology

ISSN: 1364-5579 (Print) 1464-5300 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsrm20

Exploring rigour in autoethnographic research

Cheryl S. Le Roux

To cite this article: Cheryl S. Le Roux (2016): Exploring rigour in autoethnographic research,
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2016.1140965

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1140965

Published online: 10 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsrm20

Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 12 February 2016, At: 02:49
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1140965

Exploring rigour in autoethnographic research

Cheryl S. Le Roux
College of Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 02:49 12 February 2016

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The changing face of qualitative research has opened up discourses on the Received 10 September 2015
validity and rigour of research processes and products. A current debate is Accepted 6 January 2016
whether the criteria traditionally used to judge the rigour of quantitative KEYWORDS
research are appropriate to assess the academic integrity of qualitative Research integrity; research
research including autoethnography. The purpose of this article is to appraise trustworthiness; qualitative
views on the academic rigour, validity and scientific accountability of research research; autoethnographic
in general and autoethnographic research in particular. The researcher research; research criteria;
reports on issues of rigour in conducting autoethnographic research from research rigour
her own experience and that of published autoethnographic researchers.
The issue of relevant appraisal criteria against which the research integrity
and rigour of autoethnographic studies can be assessed is investigated. It
is concluded that the academic rigour of autoethnographic studies should
be established to enhance its credibility and value and that the criteria used
need to be judiciously determined and applied.

Introduction
A significant issue in the practice of scientific research – whether quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-
method – is the ability to demonstrate that the research presented is intellectually accurate, thorough
and trustworthy, for without rigour, research is meaningless (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olsen, & Spiers,
2002, p. 13). The criteria for establishing the rigour of quantitative research – internal and external
research reliability and validity, generalizability and objectivity – are longstanding. However, since the
rise of qualitative research in the social sciences (Alasuutari, 2010, p. 139; Padgett, 2004, p. 13; Pope &
Mays, 2009, p. 737; Rennie, Watson, & Monteiro, 2002, p. 179), the question of what constitutes rigour
in qualitative research, and how it should be appraised, has become a matter of some debate (Angelo,
2008, p. 128; Hope & Waterman, 2003; Mays & Pope, 1995, p. 109; Petty, Thomson, & Stew, 2012, p. 267;
Rolfe, 2006; Sandelowski, 1986, p. 27; Sandelowski & Barroso, 2002, p. 123; Winter, 2000). Although
there are those (Bochner, 2000; Schwandt, 1996) who question the use of criteria to establish rigour,
Tracy (2010, p. 838) points out that criteria, in themselves, are useful since they provide guidelines to
help researchers learn, practice and perfect their efforts and criteria thus provide a path to expertise.
Factors that play a role in encouraging debate on research rigour include the expansion in qualitative
research genres (Keegan, 2007; Spencer, Ritchie, Lewis, & Dillon, 2003) and the rise of an audit culture
with a general concern for assessing quality (Power, 1997; Shore & Wright, 2000).

CONTACT  Cheryl S. Le Roux  lrouxcs@unisa.ac.za

© 2016 Taylor & Francis
 2    C. S. Le Roux

Autoethnography as a postmodern research method has become increasingly popular and, in

the context of this article, the ensuing question is how one should go about ascertaining the rigour
and trustworthiness of research that emanates from the use of this method. I begin this discourse
by examining some generally accepted key ideas regarding research rigour. I provide an overview of
autoethnographic research and the various modes of autoethnographic enquiry. I also present a review
of current literature on evaluating autoethnographic research and highlight the underlying issues,
controversies, and dilemmas that confront researchers who attempt to present or defend criteria for
establishing rigour in autoethnography. I explore the question of research integrity or trustworthiness
of autoethnographic research by considering my own experience of engaging in research of this kind.
To supplement my views, through field research, I have also considered the experiences and opinions
of colleagues who are proven qualitative and autoethnographic researchers. I further extended the
debate on research trustworthiness in autoethnographic research by analysing a selection of research
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 02:49 12 February 2016

articles by prominent autoethnographers who have raised the issue of research trustworthiness in their
own work. I conclude the analysis by suggesting pertinent criteria to be considered when evaluating
authoethnographic research.

Contextualization and conceptualization of the concept research rigour

Karp (1996, p. 14) argues that the value and vitality of research depends on its providing clarification
of the topic under investigation. The goal of research is consequently to educate and inform, that is,
to develop and advance knowledge and thereby make a contribution to society. In the humanities, the
predominant purpose of research is to generate knowledge about human behaviour, human experience
and human environments.
All research takes its point of departure from a particular philosophical position based on specific
ontological and epistemological assumptions with regard to how the world is perceived and how it
can be best understood (Brannen, 2005, p. 173). Rigorous research applies research tools that are
appropriate to meeting the stated research objectives which in turn are determined by the epistemo-
logical and ontological assumptions that underpin the research approach. Given that research occurs
within a particular paradigm, it is reasonable to assume that the criteria used to measure the rigour
or academic worth of the research process and outcomes need to be aligned with the philosophies of
the research paradigm and the goals of the particular research endeavour. The challenge is therefore
first to identify the goal of the research, for it is on that basis that appropriate criteria for evaluating
its research validity or trustworthiness can be identified. The research process and outcome should
then be assessed against these criteria to determine overall research trustworthiness and legitimacy.
Tracy (2010, p. 837) comments that the proliferation of concepts for quality in qualitative research
illustrates the complexity of the methodological landscape. Furthermore, the multiplicity of goals of
qualitative research implies a multiplicity of evaluation criteria. Consequently, determining the rigour
or validity of research is perhaps a more complex issue than might first appear (Bryman, Becker, &
Sempik, 2007, p. 261).
The criteria for determining rigour in quantitative research are well-established. While some
researchers argue that it is possible to apply these criteria to qualitative research (cf. Anderson, 2010,
p. 1; Franklin, Cody, & Ballan, 2010, p. 355; Golafshani, 2003; Morse et al., 2002; Winter, 2000) others
argue that different criteria are needed (Koch & Harrington, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Sandelowski,
1986; Tracy, 2010). Still others reject the notion of the application of any pre-determined criteria at
all (Bochner, 2000; Hope & Waterman, 2003; Rolfe, 2006; Schwandt, 1996).
In their seminal work conducted in the 1980s, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested alternative
ways of assessing the rigour of qualitative research by proposing the application of a set of specifically
developed evaluation criteria. These criteria replaced the quantitative assessment criteria of reliabil-
ity and validity with the parallel concept of ‘trustworthiness’ comprising four aspects – credibility,
transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Within each of these aspects, there were specific
methodological strategies that can be followed and applied for demonstrating rigour. Later, Guba
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology   3

and Lincoln (1989) developed ‘authenticity criteria’ that were consistent with constructivist assump-
tions which could be used to appraise the quality of research beyond its methodological dimensions.
Aspects of these criteria have become fundamental to the development of the standards used to assess
the overall significance, relevance, impact, and utility of completed qualitative research (Lincoln &
Guba, 2000, p. 164).
Tracy (2010, p. 838) suggests that guidelines to asses quality in qualitative research are contextually
situated, but admits that there is a bewildering number of possible criteria for determining excellence
in qualitative research which complicates the process of establishing rigour. Nevertheless, the author
(ibid., pp. 839–848) argues for eight criteria for determining high quality qualitative research in her
attempt to provide a parsimonious set of universal criteria for qualitative rigour. These criteria are
worthy topic, rich rigour, sincerity, credibility, resonance, significant contribution, ethical, meaningful
coherence. Tracy (2010, p. 849) however, cautions that it is unwise to ‘grasp too strongly’ at any list of
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 02:49 12 February 2016

criteria and cites Ellis (2007) as commenting that good qualitative methodologists conduct research in
the way they conduct themselves in their personal lives and ‘seek the good’ with the key being honesty
towards self and the audience for whom the research is intended.

Methodology
Given the exploratory nature of this study, a qualitative research paradigm was selected for this inves-
tigation. In qualitative research, data is generated from respondents’ perceptions and experiences as
reported through various means (Cresswell, 2013). The data collected for analysis in this study was
gathered through (a) a review of established autoethnographers’ reporting on issues related to the
nature of autoethnographic research and the rigour in relation to such research; (b) self-reporting on
the experience of conducting autoethnographic research and issues of research rigour in relation to
the research conducted; and (c) established autoethnographic researchers’ responses to open-ended
survey questions on the topic under investigation.
The literature review of established autoethnographers’ perceptions on autoethnography as a
research method and the rigour associated with such research encompassed the analysis of 52 rele-
vant research articles published in accredited research journals. The reporting of my own experience
in relation to undertaking an autoethnographic study required an analysis of the article published
as an outcome of the research, an appraisal of the conference paper which I had presented as well
as a critical reflection of the circumstances and events surrounding the production of these outputs.
Reporting on one’s own experiences requires self-reflection which in turn requires careful thought
about one’s own behaviour, experiences and beliefs. Self-reflection requires the capacity to exercise
introspection and leads to inquiry into the human condition and human consciousness. This requires
stepping back from an experience and considering how one thought or acted, but at the same time,
immersing oneself in the event and reliving the experience in all its dimensions. Denzin (1989) argues
that research embedded in bringing – through examination and analysis – issues or events in life to
the surface constitutes autoethnographic research. As such, my reflection on undertaking autoethno-
graphic research itself constitutes an autoethnographic study.
Lastly, based on my readings of the issues surrounding research integrity and authenticity in autoeth-
nographic research, I drafted a questionnaire consisting of two sections that I used in my field research
with academic peers. Section 1 of the questionnaire aimed at determining the respondents’ overall
familiarity with autoethnographic research and related questions of research rigour, while Section 2
asked respondents to elaborate on their views relating to rigour in autoethnography. I approached six
established researchers – all of whom responded to the questionnaire.

Findings and discussion

The results of the analysis of the data that emanated from the literature review, autoethnography and
survey questionnaire are presented and discussed below.
 4    C. S. Le Roux

Figure 1. A continuum of autoethnographic research.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 02:49 12 February 2016

The nature of autoethnography and the issue of rigour in autoethnographic research: a

literature review
Autoethnography, according to Schwandt (2007) is ‘a particular form of writing that seeks to unite
ethnographic (looking outward at a world beyond one’s own) and autobiographical (gazing inward
for a story of one’s self) intentions.’ According to Adams (2005) and Wood (2009), autoethnography
opens up a wider lens on the world by avoiding rigid definitions of what constitutes meaningful and
useful research. It is somewhat unique in academic research, since its primary warrant is a quest for
self-understanding (Anderson, 2006). Starr (2010) explains that autoethnographic research requires
self-exploration, introspection and interpretation that assist researchers to locate themselves within
their own history and culture, thus allowing them to broaden their understanding of their own values
in relation to others. Butler (2009) comments that autoethnography invites a personal, almost intimate
dimension to research and requires the reader to ‘feel’ the research and to be actively engaged in the
production of knowledge through responding to, critiquing and interpreting the autoethnographic
data (Gwyther & Possamai‐Inesedy, 2009, p. 108). Given the involvement of the reader in bringing
meaning to the research, autoethnographic research is also acclaimed for its therapeutic value – both
for the researcher and the reader of the research (Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2010). It places emphasis
on a transformative or emancipatory force for the individual and in the more widely constructed social
relations in which the individual participates (Starr, 2010). Autoethnography thus acknowledges and
accommodates subjectivity, emotionality and researcher influence.
Although autoethnographers define autoethnography differently the concepts of personal experi-
ence and of culture appear to be central to their definitions. Ellis et al. (2010) define autoethnography
as a systematic analysis of personal experiences, the aim of which is to understand cultural expression.
Spry (2001, p. 710) states that autoethnography is a self-narrative that critiques the situatedness of
self with others in social, political, economic and cultural context while Chang (2008) explains that
autoethnography emphasizes cultural analysis and interpretation of researchers’ behaviours, thoughts
and experiences in relation to others in society. Holt (2003) posits that autoethnography emphasizes
the ways in which a researcher interacts with the culture being researched while Richardson (2000, p.
924) and Méndez (2013, p. 280) commenting on evaluating autoethnographers’ research endeavours
mentions that they seek evidence of researchers who ‘live’ their research and are fully present in the
research process. Autoethnography as a methodology demands multi-layered levels of researcher
reflexivity given that the researcher and the researched are often the same person. Autoethnography
offers a way of giving voice to personal experience for the purpose of extending sociological under-
standing (Wall, 2006) and consequently provides opportunities to help people interrogate and challenge
aspects of their worlds and themselves in these worlds and to work towards reshaping these worlds
– often in the interest of social justice.
It has been proposed (Pace, 2012) that autoethnography should recognize two genres within the
tradition of autoethnography, namely evocative autoethnography (cf. Ellis, Bartleet, Bochner, Denzin)
and analytic autoethnography (cf. Anderson, Atkinson, Butler, Delamont) for researchers who want
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology   5

to practise autoethnographic research within a realist or analytic tradition. However, Manning and
Adams (2015, p. 191) contend that there are variations in autoethnographic practice all of which
emphasize different aspects of the social research-life continuum. This implies that along the continuum
between evocative and analytic autoethnography there are other ways of approaching and practicing
this research method. These researchers identify four orientations towards autoethnography which
are social-scientific autoethnography (likened to analytic autoethnography); interpretive humanistic;
critical and creative-artistic – the latter two being akin to evocative autoethnography. In more recent
work (2013) Leon Anderson, a protagonist of analytical autoethnography (2006), contends that if he
were to remain committed to an analytic model of autoethnographic writing, he would do so with a
greater sense of blurred boundaries as opposed to clear distinctions (Anderson & Glass-Coffin, 2013,
p. 64). By extension, this would then require that each of these variations on approach would require
different evaluative criteria (Manning & Adams, 2015, p. 192).
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 02:49 12 February 2016

The goals of the two verges of genres of autoethnographic enquiry are not mutually exclusive, as
Anderson (2006) explains. Both genres and those along the continuum between the two, aim primarily
to document personal experience. The key goal of evocative autoethnography which is on the one
extremity of the continuum is to evoke emotional resonance (Anderson, 2006) through ‘artfully braided
evocative text’ (Tedlock, 2013). At the heart of this approach is thick description, a value of aesthet-
ics, evocative and vulnerable stories with little concern about objectivity and researcher neutrality
(Manning & Adams, 2015, p. 193). The defining characteristic of analytic autoethnography – which
is situated on the other extremity of the continuum – is to use empirical data to gain insight into and
develop a theoretical understanding of a broader set of social phenomena (Anderson, 2006). Manning
and Adams (2015, p. 191) hold that this orientation involves a combination of fieldwork, interpretive
qualitative data, systematic data analysis and personal experience to describe the experiences of being
in, or a part of, a community. Analytic autoethnography is consequently directed towards objective
writing and analysis, whereas evocative autoethnography leans towards researcher introspection from
which readers are expected to make a connection with the researcher’s emotions and experiences.
Anderson and Glass-Coffin (2013, p. 65) caution that autoethnographic enquiry is guided less by
specific techniques of data collection than it is by a set of ethical, aesthetic and relational sensitivities
incorporated into a wide variety of autoethnographic modes of enquiry (see Figure 1).
Charmaz (2006) and Atkinson (2006) believe that Anderson’s (2006) promotion of analytic autoeth-
nography brings autoethnographic studies back to their analytic roots. However, Ellis (2000), herself
an evocative autoethnographer, argues that the ‘narrative text refuses the impulse to abstract and
explain’ and that if the story were to be analyzed, it would be transformed into another language, ‘the
language of generalization and analysis’ in which one would ‘lose the very qualities that make a story a
story’ (Ellis & Bochner, 2006). The main goal of evocative autoethnography is to use narrative to evoke
emotion, and to take the reader to depths of personal feeling and sympathetic understanding. Skeptics
of evocative autoethnography charge that evocative autoethnography is narcissistic and self-absorbed
(Holt, 2003) and consequently loses the purpose of research namely to inform, develop and advance
knowledge when it devolves into self-absorption (Davies, 1999). However, this view is contested by
evocative autoethnographers who justify their craft as having meaning beyond the generalizable and
advocate for a broader understanding of the assumptions regarding what constitutes knowledge.
With regard to determining the trustworthiness of autoethnography, Ellis et al. (2010) state that the
goal of autoethnographic research should first be agreed upon before criteria to assess its authenticity
can be framed. Given the acknowledgement of the distinctiveness of autoethnography as a qualitative
research method, and of the two genres of autoethnography – evocative and analytic with inclusion
of the other genres along the continuum – this is a valid point. Some autoethnographic researchers
challenge the use of traditional criteria to assess the rigour of their research, arguing that it is futile to
debate whether autoethnography is a valid research process or product (Bochner, 2000; Ellis, 2009).
Certain autoethnographers view research and writing as socially-just acts rather than a preoccupa-
tion with accuracy (Ellis et al., 2010) which indicates that these researchers take a different stance
towards the subject matter of social science and establishing its validity. Rorty (1982) suggests that
 6    C. S. Le Roux

these different views are ‘not issue(s) to be resolved, only’ but are instead ‘difference(s) to be lived
with’. Chang (2008) argues that autoethnography without profound cultural analysis and interpretation
merely results in narratives at the level of descriptive autobiography or memoir. Harsh in her criticism
of autoethnographic research, Delamont (2007) comments that research is by nature analytic, while
autoethnographies are experiential and therefore lack analytic outcomes. A similar critique of evocative
autoethnography by Davies (1999) and Holt (2003) was previously raised. However, Manning and
Adams (2015, pp. 188, 190) conclude from their studies on autoethnography as a research method,
that autoethnography is not only valid, but also viable and a vital method for popular culture research.
They premise this conclusion on the fact that personal experience cannot be separated from social
and relational contexts and in this way, personal experience and the narration thereof becomes an
acceptable, feasible and indispensable kind of data from which to make meaning and use in research.
It is difficult to propose a specific set of rules or criteria for the evaluation of the rigour of autoeth-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 02:49 12 February 2016

nography, since autoethnographic research can be approached using diverse orientations which each
has a specific goal or purpose for the research in mind, and, as previously indicated, evaluation criteria
should be aligned with the specific research objectives. However, autoethnographers do address the
issue of rigour in their research and Ellis and Bochner (2000) explain that ‘validity means that our work
seeks verisimilitude; it evokes in readers a feeling that the experience described is lifelike, believable,
and possible.’ For Ellis (2000), a good autoethnographic narrative should engage one’s feeling and
thinking capacities while at the same time generate in the reader questions regarding the author’s
experience and position in relation to the event, how the reader may have experienced the event
described and what the reader might have learned from reading the narrative. Alternatively, Medford
(2006) suggests that autoethnographic research should mainly be evaluated in terms of accountability,
credibility and dependability. Richardson (2000) on the other hand suggests that autoethnography
should be appraised against five criteria – substantive contribution, aesthetic merit, reflexivity (defined
as self-awareness and agency within that self-awareness), the impact the narrative causes on the reader
and its credibility. Loh (2013) echoes the issue of plausibility and utility by noting that autoethno-
graphic narratives must ‘ring true’ and simultaneously produce knowledge that contributes to other
people’s capacities to solve problems. Along similar lines, Ragan (2000) suggests that autoethnography
cannot be appraised by mainstream paradigm criteria since it is neither methodical nor systematic,
and thus cannot be measured by the assessment criteria conventionally applied to qualitative research.
She suggests that non-methodological evaluation criteria should be applied to establish rigour. She
lists these evaluation criteria as: establishing whether the narrative is interestingly and accurately
written; whether the fundamental issue addressed in the narrative is important; whether readers will
learn anything from reading the narrative and whether it has the potential to make a contribution to
the academic discipline as well as to scholarly enquiry in general. Morrow (2005) posits that certain
criteria for trustworthiness in qualitative research transcend paradigmatic underpinnings. She lists
these as: social viability, subjectivity, reflexivity, adequacy of data and adequacy of interpretation.
Duncan (2004) argues that the merit of autoethnography can be determined if one ensures that key
issues regarding the legitimacy and representation of the narrative are addressed. These issues relate
to the delimitation of the study, its instrumental utility, its construct validity, its external validity, its
reliability and scholarship.
Some of the criteria listed above resonate with what both analytic and evocative autoethnographers
say regarding the assessment of the rigour in their research. Aesthetic merit, reflexivity and impact of
the narrative on the reader would appeal to evocative autoethnographers, while contributing to the
discipline, credibility, adequacy of data and adequacy of interpretation, scholarship and accountability
would appeal to analytic autoethnographers. Given these various stances, if the rigour of autoeth-
nographic research is to be established, it would seem that the evaluation criteria for such appraisal
might need to be specifically conceived taking into account the particular genre and consequently
the unique goals of the research.
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology   7

Self-reporting on the experience of conducting autoethnographic research

I was introduced to autoethnography by a respected and internationally acclaimed research colleague.
I attended a session at an international conference at which she presented an autoethnographic study. I
was intrigued by the way that this research method apparently gave her the space to relate a significant
personal – and perhaps even private – life-event in a way that was nevertheless couched within the
parameters of academic research and presented and received as such. Listening to her presentation
I was amazed that research could be so ‘different’ from what I believed constituted ‘proper’ research.
I found the approach novel and persuasive. Her narrative interested me and had a resonance, and I
came to realize that I also had ‘stories’ that I wanted to tell in a similar way.
However, at the back of my mind a question nagged: was this real research: did this method con-
stitute sound and valid academic inquiry? Did the research in some way contribute to the ‘body of
knowledge’, or was it merely an opportunity to relate a pivotal lived experience and to find solace in the
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 02:49 12 February 2016

process? I decided that if I undertook a similar study and critically appraised how I went about every
step of the study, I might find an answer to this persistent question. I carefully planned the research
design. During the research, I would stringently reflect on the process of the research as well as the
ultimate outcome, and assess these according to criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability
and confirmability, which, if met, I believed would be indicative of having produced a valid research
output. If my efforts were published in a peer-reviewed accredited research publication, this would
be a further indication of the academic value and contribution of my study. It needs to be noted that
the criteria I had set for determining rigour were based on the trustworthiness criteria identified by
Guba and Lincoln with which I was specifically familiar.
In 2012, an event in my career had seriously unsettled my belief in academic integrity and colle-
giality. I decided to use this life-changing experience as the core of an autoethnographic study. The
opportunity arose to present my research at an international conference the following year. The thesis
of my presentation was my experience of how managerialism had impacted on my life as an academic
in the higher education environment. The approach I decided to use to write the autoethnography was
more akin to Anderson’s (2006) analytic approach than Ellis and Bochner’s evocative narrative approach
for I felt that I would be more successful in writing an analytic autoethnography than scripting a piece
of literary art. I felt it necessary to provide a sound theoretical framework of concepts unpinning the
study, which aligned well with what I understood to constitute thorough research namely, providing
a solid theoretical foundation. The concepts would provide the theoretical anchor of the research,
and the validity of my research, and therefore of my contribution to the research community, would
be assessed by the accuracy with which I presented my experiences in the narrative, as well as how
my personal experience of these issues resonated with the literature and what new insights I added,
if any, to the discourse. The primary purpose of undertaking the research – apart from gaining first-
hand experience in doing an autoethnography – was to explore how and whether in my opinion the
research I was conducting could actually qualify as meaningful research.
Initially, I thought that this would be one of the easiest research enquiries I had embarked on. In
reality, I found the process arduous and I was consumed by feelings of self-doubt. I had no difficulty in
accurately recalling, reconstructing and relating the events I was focusing on and my reactions to them.
In addition, memoranda, emails and other material evidence were available to back up my memory.
I did not have difficulty in focusing the narrative through the concepts that I had decided were cen-
tral to the research. My difficulty lay in the fact that the ‘I’ was so central to the research. It was very
important to me that the narrative should be more than a story and that it should signal scholarship.
I was concerned that the strong presence of ‘self ’ in the narrative was compromising this, despite the
fact that the approach was defensible, the findings were credible and the narrative contributed to the
discourse on managerialism in academe.
The paper was well received at the conference. I ran out of time responding to questions and
comments during the time allotted for my presentation. Several of the conference participants chat-
ted to me afterwards about similar experiences of theirs, and commented that they had been able
 8    C. S. Le Roux

to relate well to my story. The topic I discussed in my paper clearly resonated with their personal
experiences. After the conference I was notified that my paper had been accepted for publication in
the peer reviewed conference proceedings, and that it had also been accepted for publication in the
accredited conference journal. Despite this affirmation, I was still unable to decide whether I believed
in autoethnography as a research method. I had decided on criteria for the assessment of rigour and
according to these criteria, the study had passed the test of trustworthiness. Nevertheless, my doubts
about autoethnography as a research method persisted.
It has been more than 2 years since I wrote the narrative. In the meantime, colleagues have contin-
ued to present papers and write accredited articles using autoethnography as their research approach.
I attended their presentations and discussed autoethnographic research and possible research pro-
jects with them. I also had the good fortune to attend a presentation on autoethnography by the
internationally acclaimed autoethnographer, Carolyn Ellis. Yet, for me, the question lingers. Does
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 02:49 12 February 2016

autoethnography constitute ‘proper’ research and if so, how could this be established? Although I had
applied the trustworthiness criteria to the research and it had seemingly ‘passed’ this test, I remained
unsure regarding whether, in my opinion, my research was truly meaningful. I decided that I needed
to further probe the question of rigour in autoethnographic research. I resolved to extend my reading
on the topic, to analyse the experiences and views of established autoethnographers and to explore
the opinions of colleagues who were autoethnographers. This I did through an in-depth literature
study of pertinent autoethnographic research and by conducting field research amongst colleagues.

Autoethnographers’ perceptions of the rigour of autoethnography as a research method:

survey questionnaire analysis
Apart from a review of the literature on establishing the rigour of autoethnographic research, proven
researchers at the institution where I teach were also approached for their views on rigour in autoeth-
nography. The findings from the field research are subsequently reported on.
Respondents were unanimous that autoethnographic studies should be appraised for their rigour.
Regarding suitable criteria to assess research rigour in autoethnographic studies, two respondents
indicated that the criteria of reliability and validity could be used with effect, while the rest of the
respondents indicated that alternative criteria to what are generally used in the assessment of rigour
in qualitative research would be needed. There was agreement that the researcher should be regarded
as primarily responsible for ensuring the academic rigour of his or her research.
These views resonated with the views expressed in the literature, namely that it is important that
autoethnography should be assessed for rigour, and that assessment criteria must be specifically tailored
for autoethnographic research. The literature differed with the researchers in locating the primary
responsibility for assessing the rigour of the research. The literature indicated that the audience for
whom the research is intended would determine its rigour, while researchers believed that the onus
was on the researcher to ensure rigour in his or her approach to the research.
The first open-ended question of the second part of the questionnaire asked respondents for their
views on the objectives of doing autoethnography. In keeping with the literature, key concepts men-
tioned included a personal account narrative of a lived experience and self-reflection within a particular
cultural or social context – emphasizing culture and the role of ‘self ’. The purpose of autoethnography
was also described as a matter of reaching ‘greater self-understanding and insight into the social world’
with the aim of providing ‘alternative ways of doing research that allow for creativity, emotive expres-
sion and high levels of self-reflexivity’. The importance of establishing a link between narrative and
theory was also mentioned, as was the expectation that autoethnographies should make a contribution
to the research community and have utility value.
Typifying autoethnography as an ‘alternative way of doing research’ suggests that alternative ways
need to be determined by which the rigour of the research can be established. This view is aligned with
the notion that the criteria for evaluating research validity should emanate from the established goals of
the research. Other observations were that autoethnography is viewed as ‘narrative art’, which implies
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology   9

that the literary quality of the autoethnography should be appraised; that the researcher is central to
the research process, implying the relevance of researcher credibility, reliability and trustworthiness;
and that autoethnographies are ‘therapeutic – to seek healing’ and are engaged in to ‘reach greater
self-understanding’, which alludes to the evocative character of the narrative and the ability of the
researcher to write in a manner that elicits emotion and resonance from the audience.
Motivations for engaging in autoethnography included the desire to ‘add my own story’ to those
of others; the conviction that ‘my story had validity as research data and would add value to the con-
versation around certain topics’; the ‘inclination to write creatively as a social scientist’ and to ‘touch
and be touched by other academics on a more human and humane level than normally sanctioned
in academe’. These motivations point to the nature and purpose of autoethnography as a research
method, which in turn point to criteria for assessing the rigour of the research. The research is clearly
expected to make a contribution to the body of knowledge and also have emotional and therapeutic
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 02:49 12 February 2016

value. Criteria to test whether this is indeed achieved are consequently required.
Concerns about research integrity were raised, especially given the current ‘publish or perish’ ethos.
The respondents were unanimous in saying that research integrity was of the utmost importance. The
concept is clearly linked to research ethics, as well as the credibility, reliability and trustworthiness of
the individual researcher. The point was also raised that there should be agreement amongst researchers
about what constitutes research validity, since without some such basis it would be difficult to suggest
ways in which trustworthiness and rigour should be appraised. This basis for establishing research
validity is of necessity aligned with the need to be clear on and meet the research goals and to have
a clear understanding of the underlying assumptions, epistemology and ontology of the research
approach used.
One respondent emphasized the need to integrate theory and narrative, arguing that data can be
contextualized only on the basis of a sound theoretical foundation. It was noted, however, that estab-
lishing rigour in autoethnography ‘is a very difficult issue, due to the fact that the method is fairly new
and standards for acceptable research have not yet been defined clearly’. It was noted that rigour does
not lie in the chosen method per se, but in the judicious application of the method and explaining
how the process was implemented. The rigour of autoethnography could be assessed through ‘public
readings of the narrative and sharing it with others for comment’, as well as checking the findings against
evidence. One respondent cautioned that ‘your narrative is not a ‘message to the world’; it is data.’
The research findings indicate that autoethnographers and institutional researchers agreed that
autoethnographic studies should be appraised on their rigour. The criteria for establishing rigour
are clearly linked to the views that individual researchers hold of autoethnography – its nature and
purpose. Both the literature and researchers understood rigour as a concept that applied to questions
of method, interpretation and theory.

Conclusions and recommendations

Postmodern research methods make it possible to gain and share knowledge in diverse ways. Research
rigour is an imperative since it is the rigour that sanctions the research to be accepted in academe, gain
recognition and carry conviction and strength. The approaches used in postmodern research have
different purposes and methods and therefore involve different methods of determining their rigour
and trustworthiness. Generally, the process of verifying research rigour involves the use of agreed upon
criteria that underpin a multi-dimensional concept of quality in research. The ‘dimensions’ involved
include: the soundness of the research approach, its conceptual depth, the accuracy of the findings
and the integrity of the assumptions made and the conclusions reached.
Since autoethnography can be approached from diverse orientations, it is doubtlessly unviable to
attempt to arrive at an all-inclusive list of criteria for determining the academic rigour of autoethno-
graphic studies per se since assessment criteria are undeniably aligned with the underlying philoso-
phies of the research paradigm and the goals of the particular research endeavour. However, having
 10    C. S. Le Roux

available a concise list of criteria that apply in general (bearing in mind that one should not miscount
the uniqueness of the method and the diversity of approaches within the method) would be useful.
With regard to the reflection of the rigour of the autoethnography I had personally undertaken, the
criteria used had been the trustworthiness criteria attributed to the work of Lincoln and Guba. I had
not used criteria such as resonance, researcher subjectivity, narrative truth, reflexivity, aesthetic merit,
or plausibility which are advocated by autoethnographers such as Ellis and Bochner (2000), Duncan
(2004), Loh (2013), Manning and Adams (2015), Medford (2006), Morrow (2005), Ragan (2000), and
Richardson (2000) to mention but a few. In other words, I had not evaluated the research in terms
of it being a reflexive, honest account of my own experiences situated in culture which are critical,
according to autoethnographers, when evaluating research rigour in autoethnography. The criteria I
had applied were more inclined towards theory-driven, analytical research which is not aligned with
a postmodern epistemology such as autoethnography. My unease with whether autoethnography
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 02:49 12 February 2016

constituted valid research can more likely than not be attributed to the fact that I had not evaluated
the research according to appropriate criteria. In retrospect, this indicates how important it is to use
apposite appraisal standards when assessing the rigour of distinctive research methods.
Like Tracy (2010) who tentatively suggests that it is possible to create a set of general criteria – in
her case, for qualitative research, I would equally cautiously like to propose that it is possible to suggest
certain criteria according to which the rigour of autoethnographic research can be evaluated. I base the
proposition on the fact that there appears to be consensus amongst autoethnographers about certain
markers for excellence in autoethnographic studies. I propose five criteria as follows:
• Subjectivity: The self is primarily visible in the research. The researcher re-enacts or re-tells a
noteworthy or critical personal relational or institutional experience – generally in search of
self-understanding. The researcher is self-consciously involved in the construction of the narrative
which constitutes the research.
• Self-reflexivity: There is evidence of the researcher’s intense awareness of his or her role in and
relationship to the research which is situated within a historical and cultural context. Reflexivity
points to self-awareness, self-exposure and self-conscious introspection.
• Resonance: Resonance requires that the audience is able to enter into, engage with, experience or
connect with the writer’s story on an intellectual and emotional level. There is a sense of com-
monality between the researcher and the audience; an intertwining of lives.
• Credibility: There should be evidence of verisimilitude, plausibility and trustworthiness in the
research. The research process and reporting should be permeated by honesty.
• Contribution: The study should extend knowledge, generate ongoing research, liberate, empower,
improve practice, or make a contribution to social change. Autoethnography teaches, informs
and inspires.
Inherent in these criteria is the expectation that the research is ethical – itself a multifaceted con-
cept. Méndez (2013) argues that autoethnography entails being ethical and honest about the events
described as well as the content of words expressed by all the people involved in the events.
However, checklists such as the one provided above and others mentioned elsewhere in this arti-
cle, cannot substitute for informed judgement. Any appraisal of autoethnographies should be subject
to individual judgement based on insight and experience. Competent researchers and appraisers of
research must acquire not only the ability to use and understand the application of various research
skills but also the acumen to judge when some kinds of research are likely to prove more productive
and germane than others. Recognizing the need to appraise research against evaluative guidelines wins
respect and gains acceptability for the research process and product. Strategies for the assessment and
assurance of the rigour of autoethnographic research should accommodate both the application of
genre specific assessment criteria as outlined in this study and the use of sound academic judgement
and insight of the individual reviewer.
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology   11

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Cheryl Le Roux has been with the University of South Africa for over twenty years teaching at both undergraduate and
postgraduate level. Her research interests include research methods, research ethics, and history of education.  She has
published an extensive number of articles in accredited journals on history of education - specifically oral history, and
environmental education with specific emphasis on projects in the SADC region. Similarly, academic books that have
been authored relate to the history of education during the colonial era in South Africa, research methods in history of
education research and environmental education research.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 02:49 12 February 2016

References
Adams, T. E. (2005). Speaking for others: Finding the “whos” of discourse. Soundings, 88, 331–345.
Alasuutari, P. (2010). The rise and relevance of qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,
13, 139–155.
Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 373–395.
Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,
74, 1–7.
Anderson, L., & Glass-Coffin, B. (2013). I learn by going: Autoethnographic modes of enquiry. In S. H. Jones, T. E.
Adams, & C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of autoethnography  (pp. 57–83). Walnut Creek, CA. Left Coast Press.
Angelo, M. (2008). Rigor and ethics: Challenges in qualitative research. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 13, 123–133.
Atkinson, P. (2006). Rescuing autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 400–404.
Bochner, A. P. (2000). Criteria against ourselves. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 266–272.
Brannen, J. (2005). Mixing methods: The entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 173–184.
Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2007). Qualitative criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research:
A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11, 261–276.
Butler, S. (2009). Considering objective possibilities in autoethnography: A critique of Heeson Chang’s Autoethnography
as Method. The Weekly Qualitative Report, 2, 295–299.
Chang, H. V. (2008). Autoethnography as method: Raising cultural conscious of self and others. Walnut Creek, CA: Left
Coast Press.
Charmaz, K. (2006). The power of names. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 396–399.
Cresswell, J. (2013). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davies, C. A. (1999). Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching selves and others. London: Routledge.
Delamont, S. (2007, 5–8 September). Arguments against auto-ethnography. Paper presented at the British Educational
Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London. Retrieved from http://www.
leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/168227.htm
Denzin, N. (1989). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Duncan, M. (2004). Autoethnography: Critical appreciation of an emerging art. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 3, 28–39.
Ellis, C. (2000). Creating criteria: An ethnographic short story. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 273–277.
Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry,
13, 3–29.
Ellis, C. (2009). Telling tales on neighbors: Ethics in two voices. International Review of Qualitative Research, 2, 3–28.
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2010). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung
[Forum: Qualitative social research] 12(1), Art. 10. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-
fqs1101108
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733–768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2006). Analysing analytic autoethnography: An autopsy. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,
35, 429–449.
Franklin, C. S., Cody, P. A., & Ballan, M. (2010). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. In B. A. Thyer (Ed.), The
handbook of social research methods  (pp. 355–374). New York, NY: Sage.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 8, 597–697.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
 12    C. S. Le Roux

Gwyther, G., & Possamai‐Inesedy, A. (2009). Methodologies à la carte: An examination of emerging qualitative
methodologies in social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12, 99–115.
Holt, N. L. (2003). Representation, legitimation and autoethnography: An autoethnographic writing story. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2, 18–28.
Hope, K., & Waterman, H. A. (2003). Praiseworthy pragmatism? Validity and action research. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 44, 120–127.
Karp, D. (1996). Speaking of sadness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Keegan, S. (2007). Qualitative research. Good decision making through understanding people, cultures and markets.
Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page.
Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998). Reconceptualizing rigour: The case for reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
28(4), 882–890.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Pradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Loh, J. (2013). Inquiry into issues of trustworthiness and quality in narrative studies: A perspective. The Qualitative
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 02:49 12 February 2016

Report, 18, 1–15.

Manning, J., & Adams, T. E. (2015). Popular culture studies and autoethnography: An essay on method. The Popular
Culture Studies Journal, 3, 187–222.
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (1995). Qualitative research: Rigour and qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 311, 109–112.
Medford, K. (2006). Caught with a fake ID: Ethical questions about slippage in autoethnography. Qualitative Inquiry,
12, 853–864.
Méndez, M. (2013). Autoethnography as a research method: Advantages, limitations and criticisms. Colombian Applied
Linguistic Journal, 15, 279–287.
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52, 250–260.
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olsen, K., &. Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and
validity in qualitative research. International Journal for Qualitative Methods, 1, 13–22.
Pace, S. (2012). Writing the self into research: Using grounded theory analytic strategies in autoethnography. Retrieved
from http://www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue13/Pace.pdf
Padgett, D. K. (2004). Introduction: Finding a middle ground in qualitative research. In D. K. Pagett (Ed.), The qualitative
research experience (pp. 1–13). Belmont: Thompson, Brooks & Cole.
Petty, N. J., Thomson, O. P., & Stew, G. (2012). Ready for a paradigm shift? Part 1: Introducing the philosophy of qualitative
research. Manual Therapy, 17, 267–274.
Pope, C., & Mays, N. (2009). Critical reflections on the rise of qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 339, 737–739.
Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ragan, S. L. (2000). The critical life: An exercise in applying inapplicable critical standards. Communication Education,
49, 229–232.
Rennie, D. L., Watson, K. D., & Monteiro, A. M. (2002). The rise of qualitative research in psychology. Canadian
Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 43, 179–189.
Richardson, L. (2000). Evaluating ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 253–255.
Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative research. Retrieved from http://
garyrolfe.net/documents/validitytrustworthiness.pdf
Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of pragmatism (essays 1972–1980). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 27–37.
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2002). Reading qualitative studies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1,
120–134.
Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2, 58–72.
Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shore, S., & Wright, S. (2000). Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher education. In M. Strathern (Ed.),
Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy (pp. 57–89). London: Routledge.
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research
evidence. London: Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office.
Spry, T. (2001). Performing autoethnography: An embodied methodological praxis. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 706–732.
Starr, L. J. (2010). The use of autoethnography in educational research: Locating who we are in what we do. Canadian
Journal for New Scholars in Education, 3(1), 1–9.
Tedlock, B. (2013). Braiding evocative with analytic autoethnography. In S. H. Holman Jones, T. E. Adams, & C. Ellis
(Eds.), Handbook of autoethnography (pp. 358–362). Walnut Creek, CA: West Coast Press.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight big-tent criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16,
837–851.
Wall, S. (2006). An autoethnography on learning about autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
5, 146–160.
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology   13

Winter, G. (2000). A comparative discussion of the notion of ‘validity’ in qualitative and quantitative research. The
Qualitative Report 4. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/winter.html
Wood, J. T. (2009). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 02:49 12 February 2016