Abstract
This article introduces Collective Autoethnography (CoAE), a participatory and democratic research methodology distinct from other autoethnographic methodologies in its emphasis on co-constructing narratives. We delineate a six-phase approach to conducting CoAE, which encompasses preparation, data collection, transcription, interpretation, thematic consensus, and narrative production. Each phase is explored in depth, illuminating the principles and techniques involved, and demonstrating CoAE’s potential for producing nuanced, multilayered narratives. As a demonstration of this methodology in practice, we draw from our experiences and provide a worked example that explores compassion-centric approaches to teaching in times of crisis. We underscore the significance of collaboration in CoAE, which enables a more comprehensive understanding of emergent themes and a more accurate representation of diverse experiences in the final narrative. Owing to its focus on shared meaning-making and mutual respect, CoAE is well-suited to anyone aiming to examine shared experiences within a community or group setting in a qualitative research context. This article serves as a comprehensive guide to researchers interested in leveraging this empowering methodology for explorative and collaborative narrative construction.
Introduction
Amidst the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in the summer of 2020, we were invited to contribute a chapter to the publication Lessons from the Pandemic: Trauma-Informed Approaches to College, Crisis, Change (Carello & Thompson, 2021). The chapter we developed, “Tensions, Traumas, and Triumphs: Exploring Compassion-Centric Approaches to Teaching in Times of Crisis,” made use of a co-constructed, autoethnographic methodology to delve into the inherent tensions that materialize while assuming manifold roles during a crisis (Bosca et al., 2021).
Stimulated by the fascinating process of this methodology, Tiffany and her faculty peers further extended their exploration into the narrative realm, co-constructing another chapter, “Enacting Care in Collaboration as Teacher Educators during COVID” (Winkelsas et al., 2022). Similarly, Aiko, along with her colleague, created a narrative chapter, “Insider/Outsider Perspectives: Utilizing Educator Funds of Knowledge to Explore ‘Hidden Diversity’ in University English Courses in Japan” (Minematsu & Morgan, 2023).
Yet, through these enriching writing experiences, we became acutely aware of the scarcity of scholarly resources addressing the autoethnographic methods of co-constructing narratives; thus, we felt compelled to design this methodological article. Our primary goal is to develop a paradigm for what we have termed as collective autoethnography (CoAE), an endeavor to provide a comprehensive framework for future writers aiming to co-construct narratives in a communal context.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical underpinnings of CoAE rest on the foundational principles of autoethnography, participatory research, and narrative inquiry. These paradigms collectively undergird our understanding of the potential of CoAE as a transformative narrative methodology.
Autoethnography
CoAE is fundamentally rooted in autoethnography, a methodology that uniquely combines autobiographical self-reflection and ethnographic investigation (Ellis et al., 2011). Autoethnography seeks to discover and understand personal experiences within a cultural context, exploring the link between the individual and society. Autoethnographic research methods inherently value the researcher’s personal experience and subjectivity, and challenge traditional understandings of objectivity and neutrality in research. By extension, CoAE leverages the autoethnographic focus on self-in-relation to explore shared experiences within a communal context, enhancing the depth of understanding achieved through the collective examination of multiple perspectives (Adams & Holman Jones, 2011).
Participatory Research
Participatory research emphasizes mutual learning, collaboration, and the co-creation of knowledge (Kindon et al., 2007). It advocates for the involvement of all participants in the research process, from problem identification and data collection to analysis and results interpretation (Greenwood & Levin, 2007). CoAE aligns with the spirit of participatory research, as it involves all participants collectively throughout the research process, from devising research questions to constructing the final narrative.
Narrative Inquiry
Narrative inquiry is a methodology that focuses on understanding and interpreting human experiences conveyed through stories (Clandinin & Rosiek, 2007). It values the subjective experiences and personal stories of individuals, offering nuanced insights into lived realities. CoAE leans on narrative inquiry to engage with participants’ personal stories, seeking to extract shared meaning and experiences from these narratives. Moreover, narrative inquiry’s emphasis on exploring personal narratives as co-constructed and performed aligns with the collaborative and dynamic nature of CoAE (Riessman, 2008).
Through the convergence of these theories, CoAE emerges as a robust, democratic, and participatory methodology. This theoretical lens empowers CoAE to illuminate multilayered narratives and facilitate nuanced understanding of shared experiences within the cultural, social, and political milieu.
What Distinguishes Collective Autoethnography?
CoAE, which shares commonalities with collaborative autoethnography, blends aspects of collaboration, autobiography, and ethnography (Chang et al., 2013). A distinct approach known as relational autoethnography has been explored by researchers like Ellis and Rawicki (2013), Nel (2018), and Simon (2013). This method is described as “collaborative witnessing,” enabling researchers to concentrate on and narrate the lives of others through shared storytelling and conversation (Ellis & Rawicki, 2013, p. 366). Practitioners of relational autoethnography invest in listening, working together, and empathetically bearing witness to their own and others’ experiences (Ellis & Rawicki, 2013, p. 366).
While relational autoethnography strives to delve into others’ experiences, understanding their perspectives, and recounting their stories (Nel, 2018), collaborative autoethnography enlists multiple researchers who independently construct autoethnographies, eventually leading to a collective interpretation based on their unique insights (Kafar & Ellis, 2014; Nel, 2018; Rutter et al., 2021).
Duoethnography, another variant, diverges from traditional autoethnography by critically juxtaposing narratives from two or more distinct individuals experiencing a common phenomenon (Norris, 2017). An essential principle of duoethnography is the avoidance of prescriptive methodologies, fostering fluidity but possibly creating ambiguity and reducing collaboration (Norris, 2017).
However, in contrast to relational and collaborative autoethnography, our CoAE approach primarily relies on group interviews rather than individual reflective writing. Ngunjiri et al.’s (2010) collaborative autoethnography project, for instance, structured their process into four principal stages: preliminary data collection, subsequent data collection, data analysis and interpretation, and report writing: 1. Preliminary Data Collection: Encompasses individual self-writing and reflection, alongside group sharing and probing. 2. Subsequent Data Collection: Involves further self-writing, reflection, and group sharing to facilitate preliminary meaning-making. 3. Data Analysis and Interpretation: Includes individual data review and coding, coupled with group meaning-making and theme identification. 4. Report Writing: Entails individual meaning-making and outlining, alongside collaborative writing.
Similarly, Rose & Montakantiwong (2018) used duoethnography but incorporated individual reflective writing in their initial data collection phase.
Our CoAE approach uniquely involves co-construction of research and interview questions with co-narrators, managing and conducting interviews, ensuing data analysis, and theme identification for co-constructed narrative creation. This method is iterative rather than linear, mirroring Chang et al.’s (2013) collaborative autoethnography model and allowing for adaptable processes to boost collective meaning-making within and across diverse sociocultural contexts.
Another key feature of CoAE is the deployment of acquaintance interviews, offering two main benefits: frameshifting and rapport building (Roiha & Iikkanen, 2022). The researchers’ shared experiences and pre-existing relationships in CoAE facilitate co-construction of meaning and enable a smooth transition between different roles during the interview. These unique characteristics establish CoAE as a distinct and robust methodology in the domain of co-constructed narratives.
Why Use Collective Autoethnography?
The adoption of CoAE offers several advantages to researchers seeking to explore their shared experiences, positionality, and responses to common situations or phenomena. Furthermore, as a therapeutic endeavor, it facilitates self-reflection, mutual understanding, and collective healing. As highlighted by Wężniejewska et al. (2020), “Collective autoethnography is a kind of therapy. Self-healing and co-treatment” (p. 341). This aspect underscores the intrinsic power of shared storytelling to foster a sense of understanding and catharsis among participants. The process of collectively exploring personal narratives can be a healing experience, helping individuals cope with challenging experiences and make sense of their role and reactions in specific contexts.
Another compelling reason to adopt CoAE in research is its potential for critical reflection on one’s positionality. This methodology promotes the exploration of how individuals, such as educators, perceive their roles, and how these perceptions shape their actions and interactions within their professional spaces. As noted by Taylor et al. (2000), educators can utilize this method to critically reflect on how their positionality influences their teaching practices and learners’ experiences. Although Taylor et al. (2000) do not explicitly label their approach as autoethnography, their reflective practice mirrors the ethos of CoAE.
Aligned with Taylor et al., Minematsu & Morgan (2023) have employed a similar method to critique their pedagogical choices. This method facilitates a collective examination of their teaching practices, allowing them to identify areas of strength and potential improvement. The reflective process inherent in CoAE promotes the deconstruction and reconstruction of pedagogical practices, contributing to ongoing professional growth and development.
A Six-Phase Approach to Collective Autoethnography
The ensuing subsections delineate the six stages integral to conducting CoAE. For illustrative purposes, each subsection encompasses an example drawn from our project investigating compassion-centric strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic (Bosca et al., 2021). While our implementation involved a group of three, the versatility of this method allows for it to be adapted for a minimum of two participants. Figure 1 succinctly encapsulates the six stages of CoAE we employed in our project. Six Phases of Collective Autoethnography.
Phase One: Develop Research and Interview Questions
The initial phase necessitates collaborative development of the primary research question(s) and associated interview questions, ensuring that they resonate with the group’s reflective objectives and writing aims. In our project, the formulation of the central research question and related interview questions was facilitated by the predefined scope of a chapter submission. For CoAE groups not writing for a specific call, we suggest implementing procedures for sharing initial ideas and reaching consensus on the final questions.
Phase One Example
After agreeing to contribute a narrative chapter to the Lessons from the Pandemic call, we convened to draft our central research question and accompanying interview questions. The central research question asked, “How did three education professionals develop as trauma-informed educators and employ trauma-informed approaches to their practice during the spring and summer semesters of 2020 amidst the COVID-19 pandemic context?” Together, we designed interview questions to address our central research question, which were grouped into personal experiences and relationships (PER), teaching and learning (TL), and reflections and next steps (RNS).
In the section on PER, we provided an overview of our backgrounds and roles, giving insight into our personal and professional contexts. We were also prompted to reflect on how we navigated the tension between our dual or competing roles during the pandemic. The questions inquired about the impact of the pandemic on our relationships with students and colleagues, as well as our practice of self-compassion and compassion towards others.
The section on TL explored the effects of the pandemic on our teaching practices. We were asked to describe the adjustments we had made in response to the pandemic and discuss the role of technology in facilitating TL during that challenging time. The questions also inquired about the effectiveness of educational policies and practices implemented during the crisis, highlighting lessons learned from both successful and disappointing experiences. We were then prompted to consider changes we might have made in future courses and identify any support we may have required.
In the section on RNS, we were encouraged to reflect on our thoughts and feelings about how the spring semester concluded. We were asked to explore any losses we may have grieved and any accomplishments we may have celebrated. We were also prompted to reflect on our growth as trauma-informed individuals and educators in the face of numerous pandemic-related transitions and challenges. Lastly, the questions invited us to articulate any remaining questions we had about TL during times of crisis.
Phase Two: Coordinate and Schedule Interviews
Phase two involves coordinating and scheduling interviews to complete the data collection phase of CoAE. With the flexibility inherent in CoAE, various interview approaches can be considered before deciding on the one best suited to group schedules and preferences. We assumed a group of three (Participant 1, Participant 2, Participant 3) and devised several interview strategies, including rotation of interviewer and interviewee roles, concurrent interviewing of one group member by two others, and conducting a comprehensive interview session involving all group members. 1. The group adopts a three-session interview schedule spread across different days to collect data. In each session, the roles of interviewer, interviewee, and transcriber rotate among the group members to ensure equal participation. For example, in Interview 1, Participant 1 interviews Participant 2 while Participant 3 handles transcription. In Interview 2, Participant 2 interviews Participant 3 while Participant 1 transcribes. Finally, in Interview 3, Participant 3 interviews Participant 1 while Participant 2 takes care of transcription. 2. Another approach, similar to the first one, involves two participants alternating as interviewers while they interview one group member. For instance, in Interview 1, Participant 1 and Participant 2 jointly interview Participant 3. In Interview 2, Participant 2 and Participant 3 conduct the interview with Participant 1. Finally, in Interview 3, Participant 3 and Participant 1 interview Participant 2. 3. A third approach entails scheduling a comprehensive interview session where all group members participate and respond to all interview questions. For instance, in response to interview question 1, Participant 1, followed by Participant 2, and then Participant 3 share their perspectives. This pattern continues for subsequent questions until all the interview questions have been addressed. Alternatively, the group members may alternate the pattern of responses, such as Participant 3, followed by Participant 3 again, and then Participant 1 responding to interview question 3.
Phase Two Example
Coordinating and scheduling interviews was a particularly insightful and unique experience for us, as we scheduled Zoom meetings while living in different locations and time zones (New Jersey, New York, Tokyo). After discussing the pros and cons of various interview approaches, we decided on scheduling three separate interview sessions on three different days (i.e., the first approach described in the previous section) within a one-week timeframe. Due to time zone differences, we scheduled our interviews for 8–10 pm Eastern Time, which was 10–12 pm in Tokyo. We also agreed that Aiko would interview Nikki for Interview 1 (October 5, 2020), Tiffany would interview Aiko for Interview 2 (October 8, 2020), and Nikki would interview Tiffany for Interview 3 (October 12, 2020). Using this approach, we shared responsibility for interviewer, interviewee, and transcriber roles; the next step was to determine how interviews would be conducted and transcriptions would be refined to ensure consistency in our methods.
Phase Three: Conduct and Transcribe Interviews
In phase three, conducting and transcribing interviews takes center stage as a pivotal component of the research process, laying the foundation for subsequent data analysis. The collective effort of the CoAE group is key in establishing effective and precise approaches to both conducting interviews and their transcription. We needed to reach a consensus on the transcription format in preparation for data analysis, and preparing the group for the task of transcription was another crucial aspect, particularly given that not all members might have prior experience. In our group, Tiffany led the way, demonstrating transcription methods for Nikki and Aiko. We also learned the value of peer reviewing transcripts, as it helped maintain consistency and uncover unnoticed aspects like each interviewees’ use of local slang, thereby enhancing the accuracy and comprehension of the transcriptions. This phase demanded extensive collaboration and guidance but offered valuable insights into the nuances of CoAE.
Phase Three Example
Although we brought different roles, responsibilities, and perspectives to our interviews, many shared experiences were unearthed throughout our interviews, which reinforced the value of CoAE as a methodology for advancing collective meaning-making within and across diverse sociocultural contexts. To ensure the interviewer and interviewee could fully focus on immersing themselves in the discussion, the member who was not participating as interviewer or interviewee served as the transcriber (e.g., Aiko interviewed Nikki while Tiffany transcribed). While each transcriber captured dialogue and other interpretive jottings during the live interview sessions, because the interviews were audio and video recorded via Zoom, each transcriber could refer to the recording and review the transcription for accuracy in preparation for data analysis. The following represents an excerpt from Interview 1 where Aiko interviewed Nikki while Tiffany transcribed: Aiko: What have you learned about yourself as a trauma-informed person and as an educator amid myriad pandemic-prompted transitions and challenges? Nikki: It’s really important to take the time to learn about someone else’s perspective and situation. Whether it’s me as a graduate student or freshman undergraduates who have little context for learning independently the way you do in higher ed, as a learner, you need to feel you have security in the learning. Someone who’s teaching you and is compassionate toward you and your experiences. I think flexibility is the key takeaway for me. The students had to be flexible in learning online and taking tests online even if that’s not their preferred mode. Faculty, too, had to come up with creative solutions for students who maybe didn’t have the same technology access at home. So being a trauma-informed person, this pandemic was traumatic to everyone in different ways, so understanding students are going to learn best when people are sensitive to and understanding of and flexible to the traumas they might be going through. Maybe I took some things for granted as both a student and professional, but I’ve learned so much about how to be understanding and flexible and empathetic through all of this.
Phase Four: Coordinate and Conduct Data Analysis
Phase four requires the collective determination of the process of data analysis, which can be conducted either independently or collaboratively. This decision is essential to ensure uniformity in analysis, interpretation, and subsequent procedures. The analytical approach must be well-thought-out and should align with the research question, the nature of the data collected, and the group’s consensus.
In this phase, each CoAE group member should be clear on their role and responsibility in the data analysis process. The creation of a common understanding of the coding scheme is important and can be facilitated through group meetings where coding and its application can be discussed and agreed upon. This approach helps in maintaining consistency and coherence throughout the analysis.
Phase Four Example
Our data analysis phase began by collating all three interview transcripts into a shared Google Doc. Nikki’s interview was placed first, followed by Aiko’s, and finally, Tiffany’s. The interview questions were already organized according to the themes of PER, TL, and RNS. These themes formed the a priori codes used to initiate the first level of analysis across all three transcripts.
While first level analysis was conducted independently, we decided to hold a synchronous Zoom meeting to collectively code a part of Interview 1. This allowed us to ensure that we were all in agreement about what each a priori code represented and how they should be applied to the interview excerpts. With the coding clarity established, we divided the coding tasks amongst ourselves. The individual who transcribed each interview was assigned as the analyst for that specific interview; this ensured a high level of familiarity with the transcript content and context. Hence, Tiffany coded Interview 1, Nikki coded Interview 2, and Aiko coded Interview 3. The following excerpt from Interview 2 illustrates this process, where Tiffany interviewed Aiko while Nikki transcribed. The associated a priori codes are noted in parentheses. Tiffany: What accomplishments, if any, are you celebrating? Aiko: The biggest achievement, I feel, is the relationships I was able to form with my students. When the fall semester began, I didn’t feel motivated. I wasn’t excited…but in the fall my class had a max capacity of students and some students couldn’t get in, so that felt satisfying because I felt like at least I am doing something right if students want to take my course (PER). So, I had a lot of additional students who joined from the fall who weren’t in my class in the spring, and those students made comments in the first week like, “I was surprised that the students and the teacher are so friendly, and they talk to each other.” So, they felt safe and secure in my class. That was something I hadn’t noticed because I was in survival mode and just trying to achieve what I was trying to do. I realized I had formed a community with my students and the students were really happy to see each other and I was happy to see them (TL). Now I am really excited to go online and see my students and talk to them. Now I am feeling that, oh, this can be done, communities can be built online, although it’s quite hard and challenging (RNS). I think that’s a big achievement I have made. Another is with my colleagues. We have 10 English teachers that I work with and within that group we formed a small women’s group and we have been talking to each other weekly. I have been talking to my officemate a lot because we used to talk a lot in our office. We would just go on Zoom and chat or work together as we’re all on some and just asking questions to each other as we work. I feel closer to some of my colleagues (PER). I think that has been a positive that came from this.
Second Level Analysis: Emergent Themes Identified Across Three Total Interviews.
Phase Five: Review Potential Themes and Reach Consensus
Phase five is a critical step in the CoAE process that involves the collaborative review, discussion, and reconciliation of emergent themes, which eventually comprise the final co-constructed narrative. This stage is vital as it facilitates sharing reflective and critical thoughts, asking profound questions to deepen understanding, and engaging in collective meaning-making. It’s a space for learning and discovery where members might formulate or uncover questions that were not initially considered in phase one.
In phase five, team members critically evaluate the emergent themes, allowing for the reevaluation of assumptions, deepening of understandings, and a new level of co-construction of meaning. This iterative, co-constructive process can lead to a more robust and nuanced narrative. It is in this phase that the collective nature of CoAE shines, as it enables the group to perceive aspects of the narrative that may have been missed in isolation. For example, Aiko recalls a particular Zoom discussion where she noticed both positive and negative aspects in each of the three themes. These subtleties might not have emerged without the collective aspect of this phase.
Phase Five Example
Final Three Themes and Supporting Data.
Phase Six: Coordinate and Produce the Narrative
In phase six of the CoAE research process, the group synchronizes efforts to create the final narrative, a paramount output of the research. This phase consists of several critical tasks to ensure a comprehensive and representative narrative. The initial step involves the selection of quotes from Table 1 that best encapsulate each theme. However, revisiting the original transcripts should also be an available option for group members, as it could offer essential context. This procedure ensures that the narratives are steeped in the authentic dialogue from the interviews, grounding the themes in the real-life experiences and insights of the participants. Following this, the group must decide on the allocation of themes, determining who is best suited to write each narrative. This choice can be guided by several factors, such as an individual’s familiarity with a theme, personal connection, or writing style, with the ultimate goal being a balanced, inclusive, and optimal fit to ensure each theme is effectively articulated. As the writing process progresses, maintaining frequent and open communication during the editing stage is of paramount importance. The team needs to collaboratively review, suggest changes, and revise the narratives, aiming for consistency and accuracy, and ensuring that the narratives genuinely encapsulate the intended themes.
Phase Six Example
After selecting the most representative quotes for each theme from Table 1 and occasionally revisiting original transcripts for context, we decided to assign writing tasks based on each member’s affinity and understanding towards a particular theme. Aiko, due to her keen insights and familiarity, was assigned the theme that resonated with her experience: “Technology as a connector and barrier.” Similarly, Nikki led the development of “Community building and resistance” and Tiffany led “Student-centered learning as both a priority and concern.” Throughout the writing and editing process, we used a shared digital workspace to facilitate continuous communication and feedback. This enabled us to collaboratively refine the narratives, ensuring they accurately represented the themes and maintained the co-constructed essence of the narrative.
Conclusion
In conclusion, CoAE, grounded in the theoretical constructs of autoethnography, participatory research, and narrative inquiry, provides an inclusive and democratic methodology for co-constructing narratives that illuminate a diversity of lived experiences. As demonstrated in this paper, CoAE necessitates a progressive series of stages that foster collaboration, mutual learning, and shared meaning-making, echoing the core principles of participatory research (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995).
The phases from preparation, data collection, transcription, through to interpretation and narrative production are intricately interconnected, each lending depth and breadth to the resultant narrative, in alignment with the fundamental tenets of autoethnography (Ellis et al., 2011). Our journey through each phase showcased not only the depth of engagement required in CoAE but also the rich insights that emerge from the process, a clear manifestation of the spirit of narrative inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).
From initial preparation to final narrative creation, we engaged in active dialogue, reflection, and co-construction, a key characteristic of autoethnographic research (Holman Jones, 2005). This approach ensured that our co-constructed narratives were grounded in the authenticity of our experiences and insights, while also capturing the complexity of our respective social and cultural contexts.
Moreover, the element of collaboration inherent in CoAE was instrumental in refining our understanding of the themes that emerged from our data, akin to the cooperative nature of participatory research (Fals-Borda, 1991). Through reviewing and reconciling potential themes, the collective aspect of this phase revealed layers of meaning that may have otherwise remained hidden in a more individualized approach.
The process of coordinating and producing the narrative further underlined the importance of collaboration, resonating with the ethos of autoethnography and narrative inquiry (Clandinin & Rosiek, 2007; Ellis, 2004). The act of selecting representative quotes, deciding who writes which theme, and maintaining open communication during the editing process were all vital in ensuring that our final narrative was representative, inclusive, and accurately reflective of our data.
In essence, CoAE offers an enriching methodology for exploring shared experiences and co-constructing narratives. It encourages participants to take an active role in the research process, and it underscores the importance of mutual respect, empathy, and collaboration in the co-construction of narratives, demonstrating the intertwining of participatory research and autoethnographic practices (Herr & Anderson, 2005; Reed-Danahay, 1997). As we move forward in the ever-evolving field of qualitative research, methodologies like CoAE, nested within the theoretical constructs that underpin them, will undoubtedly continue to be essential tools for generating meaningful, insightful, and impactful narratives.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
