We are a group of evocative autoethnographers who have been cooperating on various autoethnographic projects for several years. In the article, we deal with the problem related to the realization of a project concerning collective autoethnographic writing. The idea seemed quite simple: By referring to the previous events related to the writing of collective autoethnography and the event of current writing, we wanted to grasp what it is and what it does to us. It turned out to be much more difficult than we had thought. Our attempt to tell a story about the experience of experiencing collective autoethnographic writing was questioned during the process of writing. We started asking ourselves why our project had been falling apart. Did we experience something unspoken? This article is an insight into the unspoken matter. We are posing a question about reconsidering the inquiry of collective writing in the spirit of evocative autoethnography.
BergsonH. (1912). An introduction to metaphysics (HulmeT. E., Trans.). New York, NY: The Knickerbocker Press.
4.
BochnerA. P.EllisC. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, and reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733-768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
BochnerA. P.EllisC. (2016). The ICQI and the rise of auto-ethnography. Solidarity through community. International Review of Qualitative Research, 9, 208-217.
6.
CoetzeeJ. M. (2010). Foe. London, England: Penguin Books.
7.
CordB.ClementsM. (2010). Reward through collective reflection: An autoethnography. e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 4, 11-18.
8.
Czerepaniak-WalczakM. (2017). Badania w działaniu w perspektywie realizmu krytycznego. O badaniach pedagogicznych zorientowanych na odkrywanie mechanizmów wyjaśniających funkcjonowanie rzeczywistości [Researches in action in the perspective of critical realism. About pedagogical researches oriented on discovering mechanisms explaining the functioning of reality]. In KubinowskiD.ChutorańskiM. (Eds.), Pedagogika jako humanistyczno-społeczna nauka stosowana: konsekwencje metodologiczne [Pedagogy as a humanistic and social applied science: Methodological consequences] (pp. 197-206). Cracow, Poland: Impuls.
9.
DayK.EodiceM. (2001). (First person)2. A study of co-authoring in the academy. Logan: Utah State University Press.
10.
DeleuzeG. (1988). Spinoza: Practical philosophy (HurleyR., Trans.). San Francisco, CA: City Light Books.
11.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (1983). L’Anti-Oedipe: Capitalism and schizophrenia (HudeyR.SeemM.LaneH. R., Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
12.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (MassumiB., Trans.). London, England: University of Minnesota Press.
13.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (2003). Kafka: Toward a minor literature (PolanD., Trans.). London, England: University of Minnesota Press.
14.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (2016). Kafka Ku literaturze mniejszej[Kafka. Toward a minor literature] (JaksenderA. Z.JaksenderK. M., Trans.). Cracow, Poland: Eperons-Ostrogi.
15.
DenzinN. K. (2013). The dead of data?Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 13, 353-356.
16.
D’HoestF.LewisT. E. (2015). Exhausting the fatigue university: In search of a biopolitics of research. Ethics and Education, 10, 49-60.
17.
DüttmannA. G. (2002). . . . AND . . . AND . . . deleuze politics. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 7, 171-176.
18.
EllisC. (1997). Evocative autoethnography: Writing emotionally about our lives. In TierneyW. G.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Representation and the text: Re-framing the narrative voice (pp. 115-142). Albany: State University of New York Press.
19.
EllisC. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
20.
EllisC.AdamsT. E.BochnerA. P. (2010). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forums: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1), Article 10.
21.
GaleK.PeliasR.RussellL.SpryT.WyattJ. (2013). Intensity: A collaborative autoethnography. International Review of Qualitative Research, 6, 165-180.
22.
GaleK.WyattJ. (2017). Working at the wonder: Collaborative writing as method of inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23, 355-364.
23.
GrantA.ShortP. N.TurnerL. (2013). Introduction: Storying life and lives. In ShortN. P.TurnerL.GrantA. (Eds.), Contemporary British autoethnography. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publisher, pp. 1-16.
24.
GuttormH. E. (2012). Becoming-(a)-paper, or an article undone: (Post-)knowing and writing (again), nomadic and so messy. Qualitative Inquiry, 18, 595-605.
25.
HarawayD. (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people and significant otherness. Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm Press.
26.
JusiakJ. (1999). Osoba ludzka—substancja czy proces? [Human being—A substance or a process?]. Lubuskie Odczyty Filozoficzne/Lubusz Philosophical Readings, 7, 132-162.
27.
KacperczykA. (Ed.). (2014). Autoetnografia—technika, metoda, nowy paradygmat? [Autoethnography—Technique, methods, new paradigm?] Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej/Qualitative Sociology Review, X(3), 32-75.
28.
KaczmarczykP.MadysA.PławskiM.SzczepaniakC.SzwabowskiO.WężniejewskaP. (in print). Kolektywne majsterkowanie, albo zmiana, która nie-nadchodzi [Collective tinkering or change which non-coming]. In KacperczykA.KafarM. (eds) Autoetnografia - stan współczesny w Polsce i perspektywy rozwoju [Autoethnography - contemporary state in Poland and development perspectives]. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
29.
KubinowskiD. (2013). Idiomatyczność—synergia—emergencja. Rozwój badań jakościowych w pedagogice polskiej na przełomie XX i XXI wieku [Idiomatics—synergy—emergence. Development of qualitative researches in Polish pedagogy at the turn of XX and XXI centuries]. Lublin, Poland: Makmed Publishing House.
30.
KubinowskiD. (2017). Badania pedagogiczne w “kalejdoskopie” paradygmatów, orientacji, podejść, metod nauk humanistycznych, społecznych i stosowanych [Pedagogical researches in the “kaleidoscope” of paradigms, orientations, approaches, methods of humanities, social sciences and applied sciences]. In KubinowskiD.ChutorańskiM. (Eds.), Pedagogika Jako Humanistyczno-społeczna Nauka Stosowana: Konsekwencje Metodologiczne [Pedagogy as humanistic and social applied science: Methodological consequences] (pp. 15-24) Cracow, Poland: Impuls.
31.
KubinowskiD.ChutorańskiM. (Eds.). (2017). Pedagogika jako humanistyczno-społeczna nauka stosowana: konsekwencje metodologiczne [Pedagogy as humanistic and social applied science: Methodological consequences] Cracow, Poland: Impuls.
MościckiP. (2012). Idea potencjalności. Możliwość filozofii według Giorgio Agambena [The idea of potentiality. Possibility of philosophy according to Giorgio Agamben]. Warsaw, Poland: Institute of Literary Researches in PAN.
41.
NowakM. (2006). Metodologia pedagogiki między “naukowością/teoretycznością” a “praktycznością” [Methodology of pedagogy between “science/theoreticity” and “practicality”]. In KubinowskiD.NowakM. (Eds.), Metodologia pedagogiki zorientowanej humanistycznie [Methodology of humanistically-oriented pedagogy] (pp. 145-170). Cracow, Poland: Impuls.
42.
PeliasR. J. (2005). Performative writing as scholarship: An apology, an argument, an anecdote. Cultural Studies ↔Critical Methodologies, 5, 415-424.
43.
Pensoneau-ConwayS. L.BolenD. M.ToyosakiS.RudickC. K.BolenE. K. (2014). Self, relationship, positionality, and politics: A community autoethnographic inquiry into collaborative writing. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 14, 312-323.
44.
PoulosC. N. (2017). Under pressure. Cultural Studies ↔Critical Methodologies, 17, 308-315.
45.
RubachaK. (Ed.). (2008). Konceptualizacje przedmiotu badań pedagogiki [Conceptualizations of the subject of pedagogy researches]. Cracow, Poland: Impuls.
46.
St. PierreE. A. (2014). An always already absent collaboration. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 14, 374-379.
47.
SakellariadisA.ChromyS.MartinV.SpeedyJ.TraharS.WilliamsS.WilsonS. (2008). Friend and foe? Technology in a collaborative writing group. Qualitative Inquiry, 14, 1205-1222.
48.
ScottD. (2014). Gilbert Simondon’s psychic and collective introduction: A critical introduction and guide. Edinburgh, Scotland: University Press.
49.
SimondonG. (1992). The genesis of the individual (CohenM.KwinterS., Trans.). In CraryJ.KwinterS. (Eds.), Incorporations (pp. 297-319). New York, NY: Zone Books.
50.
SpeedyJ. (2012). Collaborative writing and ethical know-how movements within the space around scholarship, the academy and the social research imaginary. International Review of Qualitative Research, 5, 349-356.
51.
SpinozaB. (2002). Ethics. In MorganM. L. (Ed.), Complete works (ShirleyS., Trans.) (pp. 213-384). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
52.
SpryT. (2016). Autoethnography and the other: Unsettling power through Utopian performatives. New York, NY: Routledge.
53.
StengersI. (2005). The cosmopolitical proposal (Carey-LabbrechtL., Trans.). In LatourB.WeibelP. (Eds.), Making things public: Atmosphere of democracy (pp. 994-1003). Cambridge, UK: The MIT Press.
54.
StengersI. (2011). Thinking with whitehead: A free and wild creation of concepts (M. Chase, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
55.
SzwabowskiO. (2016). Jak trafiłem na terapię. Z życia w obozie z kości słoniowej [How I came to therapy. Life in the camp made of ivory]. Parezja6(2): 148-156.
56.
SzwabowskiO.WężniejewskaP. (2017). Podręcznik z filozofii. Premiera (współ-autoetnografia wykładu) [Handbook of philosophy. Premiere (co-autoethnography of the lecture)]. Hybris, 36, 121-138.
57.
TamasS. (2014). My imaginary friend: Writing, community, and responsibility. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 14, 369-373.
58.
TaylorJ. (2011). The intimate insider: Negotiating the ethics of friendship when doing insider research. Qualitative Research, 11, 3-22.
59.
Tillmann-HealyL.M. (2003). Friendship as Method. Qualitative Inqiury, 9(5), 729-749.
60.
WhiteheadA. N. (1978). Process and reality. New York, NY: The Free Press.
