Validating Auto-ethnography As A Research Method Essay Example

undertaking action research one may want to understand the following moments. First, is are the stories told in certain context resonate or ring true to the community in question. The question is particularly critical because the researcher in this context attempts to relate the researcher’s perspective on a story and the actual story in the community (Leland, 2008). In his case, at the end of the researcher, the researcher will wish to understand whether the validation of the process represents the reality and the uniqueness in the community under research. The process of validating argue for the validity of Autoethnography also involves evaluating the coherence and plausibility in the accounts of the researcher Vis-à-vis that of the community. In many respects, the fact that Autoethnography tends to place the researcher at the center stage of the research process has been criticized as appearing to self-indulgent and therefore lacking objectivity.

The question has in most instances brought to the fore the fact that in Autoethnography the action researcher may fail the neutrality test that is common in a positivist reasoning. In real sense, the reality behind the fact that a researcher is at the center of the entire research process makes the process questionable on the basis of biases (. Rosenblum, 2016) The argument may be true on the basis that the action researcher already has a pre-set experiences or an already established side to the story that makes him open to a certain extent of complacency in his/her view and may therefore not be as appreciative of the possible outcome when the participants story in included in the main story. Arguably, this aspect makes perfect sense

and may be used to drive a negative agenda regarding argue against Autoethnography as a plausible methodological approach to research. On the contrary, this paper presents another side to Autoethnography.

Biases in Autoethnography

Arguably, to certain extents action research may be viewed as manipulative. Arguably, while there is a theoretical perspective that assumes that the action researcher does not have a predetermined social issue and pre-thought outcomes as at the point of entry, this is normally not the case. In most instances, a researcher will have already predetermined what they want to achieve in the community and engagement and will, therefore, use methods, structures and approaches that he has already chosen (Riecken, Strong-Wilson, Conibear, Michel & Riecken, 2005). Besides, concerning the social issue that the action research intends to focus on, the action researcher in many instances has a set of selected social issue, which he presents to the community. However, the action researcher will in most instances take advantage of their role as facilitators to dictate the way forward in such cases.

To this end, action research may be presented as diplomatic in theory, but coercive and manipulative in practice. The assertion is particularly because the community in certain cases not even realizes that an issue in the community is a social justice issue until a researcher enlightens such a community. As a result, the entire research, implementation, and measure of outcomes process became bias and skewed in certain ways.

Examples

The article by Fenge striving towards inclusion presents a worthy example of action research, as noted in the article the researcher does not enter into the community at the point of entry with a blank slate then begin

to plan on the research topic and the social issue (Fenge, 2008). On the contrary, the action research plan involves identifying an issue that will most likely strike the imagination of the community and become a plausible social issue for consideration (Laureate Education, 2013). Similarly, in my current social issue project, there is a predetermined social justice issue, which is the aspect of gaps in mental health care. On the same note, I have predetermined expected outcomes and procedure of attaining these results. For this reason, action research is manipulative because when a researcher is aware of the social issue and the outcome they expect the community only tends to rubber stamp the process opposed to making suggestions on the social issues.

Validation

The extent to which the validation of Autoethnography as a research process is embraceable may be observed from the following three perspectives. First is through observing the process through descriptive validity, this involves the accurate and objective presentation of information through the research process. The validity in the case of Autoethnography may depend significantly on the ability by the researcher to adhere strictly to the challenge of objectivity during the process of action research. The assertion implies that descriptive validity requires the researcher to adhere to the highest level of accuracy by ensuring that every detail recorded in the questionnaires or interview materials represent the true reflection of the participant's responses. In essence, what this implies is that in the end, even if the researcher is unsatisfied with certain extents of responses in the research process, such aspects must still appear in the final collection of data. The researcher in Autoethnography must not leave

out any information regardless of what they may personally feel about such responses. Agreeably, this is the only way through which the validity in Autoethnography can be affirmed.

The other aspect that can affirm the aspect of validity with regard to Autoethnography is interpretive validity. In essence, in order for the action researcher to build an extent of trust with the participants involved in the research process, there must be a correlation between meaning and behavior in the context of the participants as the community in question. For instance, the action researcher may present an argument to the effect that the data obtained from the action research is indicative of a certain pattern in the community. However, a close look at the community's with regard to behaviors and actions may indicate a different side to the story. A worthy example is when a researcher decides to use their experience and perspective on the community as the basis of validating his/her research process report with regards to outcomes. In essence, the perspective presented by the research may not correlate tally well with the behaviors notable in the community. Ideally, interpretive validity may, therefore, work to improve the overall validity with regard Autoethnography because it means that the information presented by the action researcher is reflective to a great extent of the behavior notable in the community.

The validation in this case only requires the researcher and the reader taking a look back at the community and observing whether the information presented by the researcher and the actual reality of the community’s accounts have apparent similarities. In case the interpretation affirms similarities then it is agreeable Autoethnography is validated.

However, if in the event of such an interpretation there are still observable differences, then it may be safe to conclude that the action researcher has failed to affirm validity in the entire process by incorporating individual biases in the process. On the contrary, if the action researcher opts to operate within the confines of the interpretive validity context, then there is a relatively high possibility that the Autoethnography is validated.

The third aspect from which Autoethnography can be validated is by considering the aspect of theoretical validity. In many respects, theoretical validity is seen a generalizing and therefore not reciprocating the aspect of Autoethnography. However, in this case just like construct validity there are inferences that can be used to legitimately link the research objectives to the outcomes. In this regard, it is possible to use the three levels of validation in the case of Autoethnography. In the end, action researcher may be able to understand and appreciate the fact that while he may have a direct role in facilitating the action research process and the fact that he has is in the middle of the action research process does not mean that he should manipulate the process. To this end, Autoethnography may be validated, but it requires an extent of independence from the manipulative impacts of the action researcher. On the other hand, it takes the involvement of the participants and the community by extension to ensure that the action research process remains within the control of the community within which the research is being conducted. In this regard, Autoethnography is justifiable and can be justified easily especially when the action researcher considers the

use of interpretive, theoretical and descriptive methods in the process of action research.

Indeed, from the three instances of substantiation, it is clear that the process of validation in the case of Autoethnography may be overly responsive and able to overcome the possible biases that may be visible in the process. The legitimacy of Autoethnography may also depend greatly on the fact that in the end, transformation is not imagined or implied. In real sense, transformation must be visible so that there can be agreement that indeed a change has occurred. One of the more imperative issues that stand out is the fact that while there are no quantifiable means to affirm that indeed transformation has occurred, there are inferences that can show changes that have been actualized in the community. The action researcher in the case of Autoethnography does not necessarily have to be an insider because in the end, he/she has to use the information from the community that is gathered from questionnaires and interviews to affirm their report.
Essentially, what is observable in the action research is the realization that ultimately it is possible to assess progress based on outcomes. In this case, the action researcher must have a way of validating the success of the process by fast assessing the community before the process Vis-a- Vis after the process. In essence, this show that while there are there cannot be statistical data to support or dispute the outcomes in the case of Autoethnography, it is possible to show the before and after effects of the transformation process. For instance, if families had a certain attitude towards mentally sick persons before interventions, validation may

require an evaluation of the same families after validation.

The Three Themes

Notably, during the mock interview, three key themes emerged as critical to the action research process; the interview is a good source for such responses (Stringer, 2007). The three key themes will also form an important basis for addressing the topic of mental health care and the stigma that surrounds the mentally ill the society. The first key theme is the aspect of the societal construct of mental illness in the community. The Responses presented social constructs of mental illness and mental health care as negative and retrogressive. For instance, an open-ended question asking "What is the leading cause of stigma in the community" yielded many answers pointing back to the collective reasoning in the community, which is a result of the negative information that has been passed on from one generation to the next. The second theme that came out in the mock interview is the issue of poor governance at the administrative level and the health care provision level (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, and Ary, 2009).

The issues of governance were raised as a leading cause of lack of resources for mental health care and the lack of public knowledge and awareness with regard to the issue of mental illness. Finally, another key issue that emerged in the interview is shame and bigotry. The participants felt that shame both from patients and families had resulted in a more serious scenario where mental health care appears as a uniquely awful disease as opposed to physical illness.

Discourse Patterns during Interview

Surprisingly, the discourse patterns during the mock interview were indicative of certain extents of affirmation and agreement with

the responses presented. For instance, the fact that the participants were drawn from different backgrounds set the stage for a broad and resourceful discourse. For instance, while there were some responses that felt the need for a more hand on government approach to the issues of mental health and mental illness. Other discourse groupings within the participants felt that the entire process of changing mindsets should start with the community. For this reason, the discourse groups assisted in developing a broader dimension for discussion.

Interpretation of Themes

The interpretation of these themes may take interrelated perspective because the themes are a reflection of the expected outcomes when the research questions were developed (Whitehead, J., & McNiff, 2006). For instance, the theme of a societal construct and that of shame and bigotry both are indicative of the broader issue that is the stigma in the society. To this end, when addressing stakeholders, it would be critical to bringing out the underlying need to enhance awareness programs as the real fast step towards ensuring there is a resolution to the social construct relating to mental illnesses (Carter, 2002). On the same note, while addressing the stakeholders with regard to governance, it would be critical to making it known to them that the process of resource allocation and policy alignment with the needs of the mentally ill is a critical aspect. Similarly, the three themes may be used to show the stakeholders the reality on the ground as opposed to the superficial indicators of discourse in discussing mental health care.

Interconnections in the Themes

Finally, there exist major connections between the three themes. For instance, it is due to the apparent social

construction of mental health care that the society has continued to look down on the mentally ill. Similarly, the extent of shame and bigotry that is notable for the mentally ill and their families is rooted in the society's negative depiction of mental illness. On the hand, it is the failure by different divisions within the government and in the health sector to militate against the negative effects of retrogressive societal constructions of mental health care and mental illness that has caused the current state of mental health care across different communities.

Overlaps between Autoethnography and Action Research

According to Benoliel the issue of validation with regard to action research is christened to the process of flower opening or that of a butterfly emerging from a cocoon. Indeed, these analogies present the complexities that involve measuring validity in action research. Benoliel interestingly break down the issue of validity by introducing the issue of transformation and an evaluation of outcomes as a key basis of identifying and determining the issue of validity. In this case, Benoliel states that when a action research enters into a community, there are expectations and anticipated outcomes that the researcher and the respective community members agree on as part of the expectations in this case, if after the entire action research process there are patterns of change with regard to the outcomes then such results form part of what is termed validation (Carter, 2009). To certain extents, the quantitative validation aspect may not apply because the action research significantly qualitative.

Arguably, it is almost impossible to discuss oppressive institutions and tendencies separately. The fact that there are observable intersecting identities means that there are

interlinks with varying forms of socially oppressive systems (Rosenblum, & Travis, 2013). For instance there is a high possibility that a highly racist community may also have observable sexist tendencies. The assertion also affirms the notion that various oppressive systems such as classism, sexism, ableism and racism tend to have bleeding boundaries. To this end, it is possible to observe Autoethnography as Intersectionality praxis.

Ideally, it is imperative to understand each of the two terms in the context of this paper. Intersectionality discusses the interconnectedness of the various oppressive systems and tendencies as mentioned. On the other hand, Autoethnography is self evaluative writing that reflects on researchers own personal experience with the community under research with respect to identity and how such experience relates back to personal to cultural and social connotations. The interlinks may explain why many of the social justice issues that relate closely to identity and self perceptions in the community keep recurring. For instance, it may be impossible to tackle racism without tackling sexism because each of the aspects refers back to self identity and are thereby interlinked to great extents. As it will be noted in the personal experience, some of the interlinks that exist with regard to personal identity and the social constructs of oppressive systems are overlapping.

To this end, it is apparent that just like a flower blossoms and there only thing that confirms this is the sight of the blossoming flower, similarly the validation of action research is based on the outcomes. Benoliel clarifies that it is that process of constantly going up and checking up on the progress that entails validation. However, the clarification in this case

comes when Benoliel suggest the role of the group in the entire process. According to her argument, it is the group that affirms whether the progress that was intended has been achieved or whether the community in question has gotten to the place or instance that has previously been anticipated. The other thing that comes out in this context is the reality that in the end, observing transformation requires a unique and intrinsically keen eye because unlike in quantitative research where the researcher looks at numbers and variances in these numbers, transformation maybe influenced by other factors that may cannot be looked statistically. In the end, the researcher must then come back to the participants with his information on transformation and seek the participant’s affirmation or correction on the extent to which they feel that transformation has indeed occurred.

In essence, what this means that the researcher may not pass judgment on how progressive or unprogressive the research process has been, on the contrary the researcher must evaluate such progress in the eyes of the participants and seek collective validation in this regard. The suggestion in this case is that the participants should be asked what they see, and how much what is visible is able to represent the reality of the participant’s story. Indeed, this aspect is critical because as an action researcher most of the times one starts off as an outsider and therefore takes a considerable amount of time understanding and learning the complexities that make up the community ( Craig, 2009). The assertion means that the action researcher may not comprehensive assessment of the community’s change process without relying on the participant’s

direct validation of the process. Gordon on her part argues that while qualitative research does not involve the use of figures as such, there is always a broader aspect that involves understanding figures and statistics that exist before the research and using such figures as a starting point towards developing an assessment of the progress in the community.

Notably, when Gordon brings about the issues of positivism in the process of action research the argument is particularly used to indicate the fact that structural functionalism tends to affirm what is already in the community (Laureate, 2013). The argument may be observed with regard to fact in reality the community has observable patterns as at the time of the commencement of the research process, for instance in the case of mental health there must have been statistics that existed prior to the research process, which may be used to offer an evaluation of the process before and after the commencement of the process.

References

1. Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W. J., Castañeda, C. R., Hackman, H. W., Peters, M. L., &Zúñiga, X. (2013).Readings for diversity and social justice (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge
2. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A.& Ary, D. (2009). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
3. Carter, P. (2002). Building purposeful action: action methods and action research.Educational Action Research, 10(2), 207-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790200200180Bottom of Form
4. Craig, D. V. (2009). Action research essentials. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass.
5. Fenge, L. (2008). Striving towards Inclusive Research: An Example of Participatory Action Research with Older Lesbians and Gay Men. British Journal of Social Work, 40(3), 878-894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcn144
6. Laureate Education (Producer). (2013). Validation. Video file. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu
7. Leland, J. (2008). In “sweetie” and “dear,” a hurt for the
   

elderly. The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/us/07aging.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0