01/06/2026 - Autoethnography

1st June 2026

Research: Literature Review

This literature review is about Lianna Beattie’s book ‘Autoethnography for Beginners: A Step-By-Step Guide’. With my methodology primarily involving (and partially titled) with autoethnography, I wanted to start to get a much more grounded understanding on autoethnographic practice. I wanted to know the key principles clearly, I wanted to gain an understanding that I could feel confident knowing when explaining the method and or using it, and I wanted to know the branches of autoethnographic practice i.e. is there more than one version of autoethnographic practice? Utilising a beginners book I felt would be a good place to ground a clearer understanding.

Liana Beattie, the author of Autoethnography for Beginners: A Step-By-Step Guide, would be my ‘guide’ through this knowledge exchange. Liana Beattie’s research is based around creative research methodologies and not only is she known for her Beginners book, but also for ‘Symbiotic Autoethnography, Moving Beyond the boundaries of Qualitative Methodologies’. Her research into autoethnographic has had an important contribution to the field of autoethnographic research practice.

The book is a short lightweight book and easy to read, also a pleasant read, where language is accessible, clear and engaging. When reading I felt that I was reading Beattie’s own autoethnographic entries with her style of reflective writing explaining the research field (that field being the cultural phenomenon). The structure of the book was also clear and flowing, with ten chapters (steps) discussing how autoethnography can be utilised within a research field with specific instructions or directives for PhD students. A note to make here is that I wish I knew about this book and was available to me at the start of my PhD. The way in which Beattie easily and clearly explains key points within the PhD, such as validating your research, the original contribution to knowledge, method and methodologies, planning research questions (and just like this text), writing literature reviews with the lens of autoethnography is fascinating and understandable.

Where, then, do I position myself in relation to this text, and what insights have I gained that meaningfully support my research? One of the most significant contributions of this work is its clear grounding and definition of autoethnography. This concept is articulated particularly effectively on page 13, where it is broken down into three elements: “auto” (self), “ethno” (the sociocultural connection), and “graphy” (the process of writing the story). In this framing, autoethnography is understood as a written form of research in which the researcher’s subjective experiences (auto) are used to explore and interpret a specific cultural phenomenon (ethno) through the act of writing (graphy).

This deconstruction offers an accessible way of engaging with what might otherwise appear to be a complex methodological term. The components “auto” and “graphy” suggest a process of personal reflection and narrative construction, positioning the researcher as both subject and author. Meanwhile, “ethno” situates these personal experiences within a broader cultural context, emphasising the importance of recognising, embodying, and critically engaging with sociocultural phenomena. This model provides a useful framework through which to understand and apply autoethnographic practice within my own research.

This cultural phenomenon is positioned to be explored through the self; however, Beattie highlights the complexities that arise when attempting to investigate such subjects using traditional research approaches. As Beattie argues, cultural phenomena require a deeper examination of subjective experience, something that conventional qualitative methodologies often fail to fully capture. He notes that existing qualitative approaches often cannot capture all complexities of the cultural phenomena under study through conventional approaches to data collection and analysis, since these traditional approaches do not take into account the multiplicity of factors that impact on the ways we interpret and make sense of the subjects of our investigations (p.5). This critique foregrounds the limitations of established methodologies, particularly in relation to the layered and interpretive nature of lived experience.

This position is further developed on page 11, where Beattie emphasises the purpose of autoethnography as a method for exploring knowledge that acknowledges reality as multifaceted and context dependent. He suggests that autoethnographic research seeks to illuminate the shades of meaning that might be overlooked in other types of research, thereby fostering a deeper understanding of the diverse and contextual nature of subjective human experience (p.11). In this sense, autoethnography moves beyond surface level interpretation, offering a more nuanced engagement with cultural phenomena.

Importantly, this framing provides a degree of confidence in applying autoethnographic methods within research practice, validating it as a legitimate and distinct methodological approach. As Beattie further states, the primary purpose of autoethnographic research is to explore, interpret, and make sense of cultural phenomena by delving into the depth and richness of one’s own subjective experiences (p.11). This reinforces a sense of embodied engagement within the research process. In my own practice, this is particularly resonant, as I frequently find myself working within landscape contexts, using experimental approaches to uncover and generate knowledge through direct lived interaction with cultural phenomena.

This reflection, however, leads me to consider Beattie’s position on arts practice, particularly where she suggests a lack of a written element within certain forms of autoethnography. She states that many other forms of autoethnography appearing in the field, including dance, musical performances, and poetic presentations, to name a few, which I would not define as autoethnography, since they lack the essential element of graphy in their projects. This raises a critical question within my own research. Does Beattie imply that the act of dancing, performing music, or speaking poetry cannot constitute a form of graphy? Is the physical act of doing separate from the process of inscription and meaning making?

In response, I begin to question whether graphy within my own practice might be understood differently. Could the photographic image, the sculptural form, the print, or even the written journal entry function collectively as graphy? Rather than existing solely as written articulation, these outputs operate as a language of engagement, where meaning is produced through material interaction and sensory translation. A language of soil, image, and form begins to emerge through photographic and sculptural processes. This suggests the possibility of an expanded interpretation of graphy, one that is not confined to text but is instead embedded within creative and practice-based outputs.

It is within this tension that I begin to identify a potential methodological position, one that I describe as autoethnographic unearthing. Within this approach, the graphy does not originate solely from the self as author but instead positions the self as a translator of experience, where the landscape itself contributes to the generation of meaning through reflection on surfaces and materials. Supporting this shift, Ellis and Bochner argue that in autoethnography, where the researcher is the subject, the researcher’s interpretation of the experience becomes the data (p.58). However, this prompts a further reconsideration. What if the researcher is not the sole subject, but rather the researched environment becomes the subject, and the experienced interaction becomes the data?

This perspective is reinforced by Beattie’s discussion of extracting autoethnographic data, where she states that when extricating autoethnographic data, you would engage in a process of imaginative and creative techniques of recognising relevant and potentially valuable fragments of your experiences within the complex fabric of your life journey that could contribute to a better understanding of the cultural phenomenon under study (p.58). Here, I find further support for my approach, as it is through creative and interpretive methodologies that meaning is drawn out, assembled, and understood. This validates my research practice and suggests a potential contribution to knowledge. As Beattie notes in relation to contribution and limitations, stress the ways in which your research contributes, where applicable, to the development of new theoretical frameworks and methodologies that further enhance the field (p.83).

Positioning myself within this discourse, I align with a non-traditional form of autoethnography. Beattie distinguishes between analytic and evocative autoethnographers, where analytic approaches tend to follow more structured and conventional forms of writing, enabling systematic analysis, while evocative autoethnographers embrace experimental methods, drawing on a range of creative and arts-based techniques to produce more unconventional outputs. My work situates itself within this latter approach, engaging with experimental processes and material practices as forms of inquiry.

Despite this non-traditional orientation, it remains essential that autoethnography retains its core focus. As Beattie emphasises, there is a need to focus on a specific cultural phenomenon as the essential aspect of autoethnography (p.34). This reinforces the importance of grounding even the most experimental methodologies within a clearly defined cultural context, ensuring that the work maintains both intellectual rigour and conceptual coherence.