Background
In support of the call for more qualitative research in the field of positive psychology to add richness and depth to our ever evolving understanding of human flourishing (Rich, 2017). I am specifically addressing authoethnography as an underutilized, challenged and often devalued methodology (Denzin, 2003) and because of what I believe it can do. There are many discussions in the literature surrounding how autoethnography amplifies voices that have been silenced and how it attracts those who feel marginalized (Campbell, 2017; Grant, 2010; Holt, 2003; Sparkes, 2003).
Aims
This talk will be for positive psychology researchers and academics who are interested in moving the field of study towards a more inclusive and representative set of voices, hearing from those who often feel shut out. Filling the need for more diversity in our understanding which is critical to meeting the global call for social justice.
Method
I will also lay out a methodology for how autoethnographies can be encouraged and approached for inclusion into academic literature drawing on some of the expertise from experts such as Chang (2008). Addressing the potential conflicts of autoethnography and traditional scientific study of objectivity and universal applicability.
Results
I believe the nature of a firsthand account of human experiences poses some unique challenges for both researchers and supervisors which involve safety, confidentiality, and validity as well as an assurance that the work adds to or moves the needle in the field of study. I will address these challenges and share strategies on how to deal with and evaluate them. These will be pulled from both my own experience of writing an autoethnography for my MAPP dissertation for which I received a Mark of Distinction, as well as other experts.
Conclusion
We are at a point where these voices need to be heard and learned from and not allow the rigours of objectivity and replicability of the scientific method silence them.