Navigating Teacher Professionalism in Autoethnography: Ethical and Occupational Dilemmas in Professional Learning Reflections

Abstract

Ongoing professional learning and engaging in practitioner-based research are characteristic qualities of teachers’ transformative professionalism. Autoethnography may align with the objectives of promoting autonomous adult learning through systematic reflection to enhance professional practice. Through an autoethnographic method, I generate a vignette disseminating my experiences as a public school teacher engaging in autoethnography as a reflective professional learning strategy to bolster my pedagogical/collegial practices. Findings generated via my reflective inquiry demonstrated that autoethnography may advance teachers’ transformative professionalism through autonomous exercise of knowledge and self-directed learning, and may bridge the gaps between theory and praxis in educational contexts. However, my vignette further revealed the confining tensions in which organizational professionalism ideology may simultaneously control and impede the scope, content, and dissemination of teachers’ autoethnographies, resulting in subtle forms of self-censorship. Further, this study generates new methodological insights into the procedural construction of a teacher’s autoethnography, specifically revealing the ethical challenges I navigated as a teacher engaging in autoethnography, a process that necessitated difficult decision-making regarding my own willingness to be occupationally vulnerable and measures to safeguard students’ confidentiality. Consequent to this inquiry, I generated practical recommendations to guide teachers interested in engaging autoethnography as a learning reflection tool and outline considerations to ensure authors’ physical, emotional, and occupational safety.

Introduction

Teachers are bestowed with the enormous civic responsibility to foster the academic development of children and youth (Young et al., 2021). It is through our public educational systems that students may be empowered via acquiring the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary to pursue a meaningful life and collectively contribute to needs and functions of our democratic society (Giroux, 1986, 2013; Young et al., 2021). Facilitating learning to accommodate the diverse needs of student bodies, however, is certainly a complex and demanding undertaking. As practitioners, teachers need to engage in ongoing professional learning to reflect upon their pedagogical approaches, confront and challenge their own internal biases, investigate and integrate theoretical developments in the field into their classrooms, and overall strive to enhance their practices to support the ever-evolving needs of their student bodies (Apple, 2012; Giroux, 1986; Schön, 1987, 1992). As such, teachers’ ongoing professional learning and development is essential to not only improve students’ academic achievement, but also to bolster teachers’ skills and capacities as professionals (Hargreaves, 2000; Sachs, 2003; Sehrawat, 2014).

Possessing expert knowledge in a particular field has been historically identified as a core criterion of professionalism ideology (Barber, 1963). Similarly, the expectation to engage in ongoing professional learning and development is a hallmark requirement of the teaching profession (Boylan et al., 2023; Sachs, 2016). Gregson and Sturko (2007) acknowledged that teachers are adult learners and that there is an ongoing need to reframe our understanding of professional development to reflect teachers’ individual, context-specific classroom autonomy. Brookfield (1984) affirmed the importance and empowering aspects of self-direction in adult education, specifically that professional learning is not contingent on external and/or managerial forces, but rather manifests through individuals’ own intrinsic yearning to grow. Being autonomous in self-determining the trajectory of their own professional learning is a foundational tenet of teachers’ transformative professionalism (Boylan et al., 2023; Ertürk, 2023; Körkkö et al., 2016; Sachs, 2003; Sehrawat, 2014). As public intellectuals, teachers require the autonomy to define the ways in which knowledge organizes daily school function and through reflection and action may empower their students’ learning and future livelihoods (Giroux, 1986, 2013).

While there may be a plethora of avenues to exercise autonomous professional learning practices, there is ample research documenting the prospective benefits of systematic reflection on professionals’ practice (Körkkö et al., 2016; Tay et al., 2023). Schön (1992) was an early figure in theorizing the notions of reflective practice, as he problematized the epistemological dominance of technical rationality, the viewpoint that enhancing practitioner’s knowledge was achieved via rigorous methods of scientific empiricism. Contrasting this perspective, he proposed the notion of reflection-in-action, the idea that practitioners may broaden their professional knowledge and expertise through individualistic, context-specific reflections in/on their immediate practices. It is through reflective practices that practitioners may not only critically analyze their daily practices, but also interrogate underlying presumptions and biases driving such actions. Schön (1992) further explains:

He [sic] may reflect on the tacit norms and appreciations which underlie a judgment, or on the strategies and theories implicit in a pattern of behavior. He may reflect on the feeling for a situation which has led him to adopt a particular course of action, on the way in which he has framed the problem he is trying to solve, or on the role he has constructed for himself within a larger institutional context. (p. 62)

Reflective practices are particularly relevant and applicable to the field of education, as teachers may reflect upon their students’ interests, levels of learning engagement, and adjust their pedagogical practices accordingly to enhance students’ enthusiasm for learning (Schön, 1987). There is an imperative importance in reflective practices within teacher professional discourse, as such practices may lead to improved instructional practices and student learning and critical thinking capacities (Körkkö et al., 2016; Tay et al., 2023).

To improve professional learning and practice, there are growing recommendations for teachers to engage in practitioner-based research methods to bridge gaps between theoretical insights and praxis (Gutierez & Kim, 2017; Mills, 2007). Zeichner (1987) identified six prospective research endeavours in which teachers may enhance their reflective capacities, including: (a) action research; (b) ethnography; (c) writing; (d) supervisory approaches; (e) curriculum analysis; and (f) a methodology of “reflective teaching.” Autoethnography has been widely utilized as a research method for teachers to reflect upon professional learning, interrogate organizational structures, and generate theoretical insights (e.g., Jones & Robinson, 2021; Kim & Lee, 2021). Reflection is an integral component in autoethnography, as the methodology necessitates the cultural analysis of authors’ own lived experiences (Ellis et al., 2011). While autoethnography may be conducive to supporting teachers’ professional learning via structured reflection, there are potential social and/or structural barriers impeding such practices. Teachers’ practices are actively constrained by bureaucratic controls (Apple, 2012; Evetts, 2011; Giroux, 1986) and further hindered by a growing public distrust of, and resistance towards, teachers’ pedagogies and educational approaches (Giroux, 2013; Young et al., 2021). Therefore, teachers may be apprehensive to publicly disseminate reflective practices out of fear from public and/or administrative scrutiny. Schön (1992) acknowledges the potential threat of teachers’ empowerment via reflective practices may present to administrators, stating: “Reflection-in-action poses a potential threat to the dynamically conservative system in which she lives” (p. 332) and “the freedom to reflect, invent, and differentiate would disrupt the institutional order of space and time” (p. 333).

As a teacher-researcher, I present an autoethnography of my practitioner experience navigating the constraints of teacher professionalism while writing a professional learning reflection. I reflected upon my professional experiences teaching in Canadian public schools, specifically the ethical challenges of publicly disseminating information pertaining to my student bodies, colleagues, and administration. Teachers must be exceptionally conscientious when discussing information relating to children and youth as these individuals are categorized as a vulnerable sector of the population and teachers’ hold considerable levels of power and influence in these dynamics (Young et al., 2021). Teachers serve within a regulated profession that mandates ongoing professional learning, but also adherence to codes of professional conduct (Barber, 1963; Evetts, 2011; Stone-Johnson, 2017). Therefore, engaging in a teacher autoethnographic inquiry may manifest complex, unexpected ramifications in future career trajectories. My experiences led to the formation of the research question: What are the potentialities and impediments of utilizing autoethnography as a method for facilitating teachers’ reflective professional learning? I explored the prospective benefits of utilizing autoethnography to advance my own professional learning, unpacked the social/organizational parameters negating such inquiry, and reflected upon the complex ethical dynamics inherent in my function as a public school teacher. Through this article, I provide a comprehensive conceptual overview of teacher professionalism, outline my methodological approach to practitioner-based autoethnography, generate a detailed vignette accentuating the tensions between teacher professionalism and self-reflective professional learning, disseminate a theoretical analysis of the phenomenon, and provide practical recommendations to practitioners on how to circumvent some of the professional and ethical dilemmas impeding reflective learning practices. In the following section, I generated a succinct overview of the evolving and contested conceptualizations of teacher professionalism, recognizing its transformative potential to advance teachers’ occupational agency, while also acknowledging critical scholars’ problematization of its regulatory discourses.

Teacher Professionalism

There is no universally agreed upon definition of teacher professionalism and the concept remains considerably contested within many academic circles (Demirkasimoğlu, 2010; Sorenson, 2023). Professionalism is not static, but rather is an ever changing concept (Hargreaves, 2000; Stone-Johnson, 2017). Some scholars outline positive attributes associated with teacher professionalism, such as increased workers’ autonomy, salaries, occupational status, among other benefits (Hargreaves, 2000; Hoyle, 2001; Sachs, 2003, 2016). However, others argue that the discourse of professionalism to be oppressive, is methodically implemented to control workers’ behaviours and conduct, and silences marginalized identities and ways of knowing within organizational contexts (Midgley, 2008; Mizzi, 2013; Schreiner & Bogden, 2020). Evetts (2011) outlined three contrasting interpretations of professionalism: (a) as an occupational value (viewing the concept optimistically, emphasizing workers’ autonomy, improved job satisfaction, enhanced salaries, among other benefits); (b) as an ideology (critical interpretations that explore the monopolistic and self-serving nature of professionalism, viewing the phenomenon to only regard workers’ interest without considering the public good); and (c) as a discourse of managerial control (generally examining professionalism within organizational contexts, examining how workers’ labour is controlled via behavioural constructs). Evetts explained that these alternative analyses of professionalism as an occupational value vary from positive, negative, and/or combined. Stone-Johnson (2017) dichotomized the paradoxical nature of teacher professionalism, noting that in exchange for receiving greater voice in their work, teachers are consequently subject to increased monitoring, workplace responsibilities outside the classroom, and standardization of practices. Ozga (1999) similarly argued teacher professionalism to be an inherently unstable form of organizational control, approached either through: (a) the promotion of a professional ideology (regulating workers’ behaviours, mitigating militant unionism through responsible co-option, all in exchange for increased curricular autonomy); or (b) via direct regulation (top-down curriculum control, but inevitably leading to union militancy). As such, Ozga argued both forms to be unstable and that “each strategy contains the seeds of its own destruction” (p. 14). Further outlining the evident tensions within professionalism discourse, Evetts (2011) differentiated between occupational professionalism and organizational professionalism.

Occupational professionalism is foundationally premised upon advocating for workers’ increased autonomy and fostering collegial and collaborative practices, but has been progressively replaced the discourse of organizational professionalism (a professionalism “from above”), increasing managerial control over teachers’ roles, responsibilities, and conduct within the workplace (David, 2000; Evetts, 2011; Sachs, 2003, 2016; Stone-Johnson, 2017). Occupational professionalism is generally regarded positively and deeply emphasizes teachers’ autonomy in practice, professional learning, and/or engaging in research (Demirkasimoğlu, 2010; Ertürk, 2023; Frostenson, 2015; Sachs, 2003, 2016; Stone-Johnson, 2017). Autonomy is generally regarded as a central tenet to teachers’ professionalism, ensuring teachers have the agency to explore their interests in professional learning, exercise local judgement, and utilize local practices (Boylan et al., 2023; Demirkasimoğlu, 2010; Frostenson, 2015; Sachs, 2003; Sehrawat, 2014; Stone-Johnson, 2017). Further, safeguarding teachers’ voice and freedom to exercise knowledge is paramount as “expertise is regarded as the prime source of professional power” (Sorenson, 2023, p. 48). Advocates of this conceptual interpretation generally oppose deprofessionalization efforts, arguing such efforts result in workers’ demoralization and decline in autonomous practices (Wronowski & Urick, 2021).

Possessing an expert knowledge in a field has been historically considered a hallmark characteristic of professionalism ideology (Barber, 1963). As such, the culture of professionalism generally entails the expectation of ongoing professional learning and development to remain current in these specialized areas of knowledge and practice (Boylan et al., 2023; Sehrawat, 2014). As teachers are adult learners (Gregson & Sturko, 2007), professional development reflects the androgogical principles of autonomous self-direction in learning (Brookfield, 1984; Knowles et al., 2005), a process necessitating critical self-reflection, whereby learners draw upon previous experiences and knowledge to inform future learning trajectories (Brookfield, 1984; Mezirow, 2009). Both transformative and occupational professionalism share various unifying sentiments with adult education, specifically emphasizing the importance on adults’ individual autonomy to self-direct their own ongoing learning (Brookfield, 1984; Ertürk, 2023; Gregson & Sturko, 2007; Knowles et al., 2005; Mezirow, 2009; Sachs, 2003, 2016; Sehrawat, 2014). Teachers are reflective professionals (Sachs, 2003, 2016; Schön, 1987) and need to continually enhance their pedagogical practices to adapt to a world in flux.

Despite the potential benefits often associated with teacher professionalism (e.g., salaries, workplace autonomy, status, etc.), numerous scholars have problematized its covert and oppressive capacities. Moeller (2019) explicated such inequities, arguing:

The discourse around professionalism often fails to interrogate underlying assumptions and thus serves to promote a white, heteronormative, ableist perspective where the existence of any ‘professional’ whose body or mind does not represent this default is erased by an ‘ideal’ model of what it means to be professional. (p. 461)

Other critical perspectives include Mizzi’s (2013) rebuke of heteroprofessionalism, arguing that queer identities, cultures, and epistemologies are actively silenced and/or reprimanded within organizational contexts. Schreiner and Bogden (2020) discussed the erasure of neurodivergent professionals, asserting that employers reinforce neurotypical behaviours as the expected norm. Further, Midgley (2008) coined the term professional imperialism, suggesting white Euro-Western customs are exalted to be the superior way of knowing and doing. Evidently, professionalism remains a complex, multifaceted, and contested concept that may be interpreted as an occupational value to advance workers’ practices (Sachs, 2003, 2016; Stone-Johnson, 2017), or conversely as an ideological framework to silence workers’ identities and expressions (Midgley, 2008; Mizzi, 2013; Ozga, 1999). It is through this highly intricate lens of teacher professionalism that I utilized to interpret the phenomenon generated in my autoethnographic inquiry. In the next section, I outline my procedural approach to autoethnography, specifically employing an individualistic-focused storytelling method (Chang, 2008) utilizing a hybridity of both evocative and analytic strategies (Winkler, 2018).

Methodology

Autoethnography has become a well-established, but evolving methodology in the social sciences as diverse procedural and analytical approaches continue to emerge (Anderson, 2006; Winkler, 2018). Ellis et al. (2011) define autoethnography as “an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyze (graphy) personal experience (auto) in order to understand cultural experience (ethno)” (p. 273). Bloor and Wood (2011) provided a similar interpretation, describing autoethnography as “reportage of the reporter’s own personal and emotional life, that is explicitly informed by social science concepts and perspectives, by sociological introspection” (p. 19). Autoethnography was foundationally premised upon a postmodern epistemological turn in the social sciences as scholars began questioning the parameters of what constituted legitimate knowledge in research (Bloor & Wood, 2011; Ellis et al., 2011; Wall, 2016; Winkler, 2018). As such, autoethnographers generally reject authoritative explanations of reality, but rather recognize knowledge to be fluid and may be drawn from diverse, polyvocal personal narratives (Bloor & Wood, 2011; Mizzi, 2010). As the methodology evolved, two main variants of the autoethnographic process have emerged: (a) evocative; and (b) analytical approaches (Anderson, 2006; Lapadat, 2017; Wall, 2016; Winkler, 2018). Evocative autoethnography emphasizes emotional self-reflexivity as a data source and rejects the realist underpinnings associated with traditional ethnography (Wall, 2016; Winkler, 2018). Conversely, analytical autoethnography is more closely aligned with traditional ethnographic research approaches and aims to generate theoretical insights from the author’s lived experience (Anderson, 2006). Some scholars have argued, however, that autoethnography may be interpreted as a continuum and may encompass qualities from both the evocative and analytical traditions (Winkler, 2018). There are many prospective benefits of autoethnography, including the accessibility of generating rich, in-depth data on cultural phenomena that may have otherwise been difficult to gather through conventional data collection approaches (Lapadat, 2017). As the researchers themselves are typically the primary source of data generation, autoethnographers may unpack and disseminate highly emotional, vulnerable experiences to generate new theoretical insights (Lapadat, 2017).

For this inquiry, I present a vignette outlining my experience navigating autoethnography as a professional learning reflection tool. This experience occurred in 2023 as I contemplated generating an autoethnography to reflect upon my professional learning as a public school teacher during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, I aimed to unpack how strenuous teaching conditions impeded my practice, but also to better understand how self-initiated pedagogical adaptations helped sustain my professional practice. However, as I began designing and writing the learning reflection, I paused to consider professional ramifications of engaging in such research. Through this vignette, I shared my internal struggles self-negotiating on how transparent, authentic, and vulnerable I was willing to be in autoethnography, carefully contemplating upon my professional and ethical obligations as a public school teacher throughout the process. To supplement my recollection of events, I revisited various work-related artefacts, including journal entries and early reflection manuscripts of the prospective autoethnography. I consider this autoethnography to be situated within the spectrum between evocative and analytical approaches (Winkler, 2018), as I evocatively present my emotional vulnerability engaging in the process, but also aimed to analytically generate new theoretical insights. This individualistic-focused vignette autoethnographic approach (Chang, 2008) is consistent with evocative traditions of autoethnography whereby emotional self-reflexivity is utilized as a data source and analysis is conducted through interpretative methods (Winkler, 2018). In the next section, I critically reflected upon my professional experience contemplating how to navigate the ethical and occupational barriers so that I may be able to generate a teacher professional learning autoethnography.

Vignette: Can I Share This?

I sit at my computer in my classroom and sift through the abundance of emails I had missed throughout the school day. All teachers received an email reminder that our professional learning reflections are due before the conclusion of the school year. The email provided information on how to upload the document and shared the parameters of reflective focus, specifically to identify how professional learning throughout the year has impacted our pedagogies and students’ learning. In lieu of a formal evaluation by a school administrator, our school district requires teachers to write an annual reflection paper on their professional learning. It is really quite a progressive policy and I really enjoy the opportunity to unpack my learning through this medium. Much of our professional development is often pre-specified, whether decided upon by the board office or collectively by our school committee. It is not often teachers are able to individually choose a topic of interest to explore for professional learning. As a public school music teacher, I have written about various topics throughout the years: learning from an Indigenous Elder, designing and implementing songwriting pedagogies with my students, embarking upon teacher leadership in my school community, and so forth. I sit in my chair contemplating as to what I would like to formally delve into.

It has been a particularly trying number of years as a public school teacher. My mind almost immediately begins focusing on mental health and the turbulent struggles of teaching throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. I navigated some considerable lows in my personal and professional life during these times, and it was markedly difficult teaching to accommodate so many public health protocols in music education (e.g., mandatory masking, no singing, no playing wind instruments, physical distancing, increased sanitation, etc.) (Laidlaw, 2023; 2024). Consequently, I had to significantly alter my pedagogical approaches to keep my students engaged and achieve provincial curricular outcomes. I understand my experiences were not isolated, as many teachers struggled with navigating the feelings of burnout (Sokal et al., 2020), particularly affecting our community of music educators (Laidlaw, 2023). Music was really important to me growing up, and I similarly want my students to flourish, to learn, and to appreciate music. It was really tough, but I feel I worked fairly diligently to explore new pedagogies to support their development.

Alternatively, perhaps I should reflect on peace education and how it intersects with societal and some local challenges. Since the pandemic, there has been a growing distrust and resistance toward public school practices (Giroux & DiMaggio, 2024), and our school was particularly affected by a parental protest against LGBTQIA+ education. Over half our student population was absent as a part of an organized community demonstration opposing such education. I reflect on other comparable local struggles, as other schools across the province have been navigating community discussions on book banning, Indigenous Residential School denialism, and other resistances.

During these circumstances, I have also been a graduate student pursuing my doctoral degree. It certainly has been trying, but I have been so thankful for the opportunity to be exposed to so many interesting ideas on education. I have been reading a lot on job demands-resource theory (Demerouti & Bakker, 2022), job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), and other contemplative perspectives on supporting teachers’ wellbeing. Perhaps this year I could write about navigating recent professional issues, but also acknowledge how these struggles led to new adaptive practices, leading to my own professional development.

I stop and consider a new revelation: maybe I could turn this into an autoethnography! It would be great practice as an emerging academic and would be a neat opportunity to delve a little deeper and share some new insights with my university colleagues and mentors. I would imagine this would be encouraged. As teachers, we have district policies encouraging teachers to engage in practitioner-based research, such as action research or narrative inquiries. Autoethnography would be a very suitable avenue for practitioner-based research! I become quite excited at the prospect of turning my reflection into an autoethnography and begin contemplating how a prospective article may be structured.

However, my enthusiasm almost immediately stagnates as I think to myself, “Can I share this?” I stop to consider the prospective ethical and/or professional tensions of engaging in autoethnography as a public school teacher, particularly cognizant of my legal obligation to adhere to my own code of professional practice (Manitoba Teachers’ Society, 2025). The code is quite clear that I am not to criticize my colleagues, to only disseminate information regarding my students via proper channels of communication, to consistently uphold integrity and act in good faith, among other expectations. I stop to contemplate as to whether or not engaging in an autoethnography may compromise any of these occupational requirements. If I were to proceed, I would need to ensure that the vignette would not be perceived to be scathing of my colleagues and/or administration’s practices, or that interactions with students would be minimized and anonymized. I understand some autoethnographers recommend asking peers for permission if they are indirectly referenced (e.g., Ellis, 2004). Asking my students for assent would be infeasible, as I have over 200 students and would need their parental/guardian consent. I begin to wonder if an autoethnography is a realistic goal, particularly if I wish to subsequently publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps I could circumvent this issue and just mention students or colleagues generically through broad statements, such as: “I noticed my students have been disengaged lately.” At least then I have foreseeably no risk of identifying anyone.

My mind is racing with questions and concerns as I begin to consider how publishing an autoethnography may affect my relationship with my school and/or senior administration. I would need to approach any writing very diplomatically to ensure my reflections may not be construed as critical. Through my own union work, it has been shared that there have been various examples of teachers being fired for publicly expressing dissent with their school district’s approach to pandemic protocols. The pandemic has been a highly sensitive, contentious global development; perhaps I should tread lightly. I certainly do not want to write anything construed as scathing so as not to be reprimanded.

I sit back in my office chair and become increasingly anxious and dissuaded. I then begin to contemplate various ethical complexities. As a doctoral student, I begin to wonder if this project would necessitate an ethics review by my local institution. If I situate the reflection exclusively on myself, perhaps this would bypass such a requirement? I don’t believe I would need an ethics board’s approval if there are no other human subjects. However, I begin to consider my school district policy. I understand research conducted on students within my own institution typically requires approval from senior administration. But, this isn’t really research conducted within my own institution and does not specifically focus on students, it’s more accurately a critical reflection on my professional experience, similar to participating in something like an interview or focus group. My organization does not prohibit me from participating in these research endeavours. That said, this is different from a focus group, as my participation would be confidential, whereas I need to explicitly self-identify through autoethnography. Perhaps I should contact my union for further clarification and verify that I am safe to conduct this work and, cognizant of our district policy, whether or not this project would require administrative approval to proceed.

As I stop to reflect on these complex considerations, another concern arises about how sharing these experiences could affect any future career prospects. Publicly sharing my experiences via autoethnography would immortalize my personal and/or professional fragilities. I remember a past conversation I had with a colleague on the topic of teacher wellbeing, who shared that they struggled with taking a stress-related leave of absence as they worried it would compromise their career trajectories. Specifically, they expressed concern that they would be disregarded for a future position in educational leadership, as would be labelled unresilient, unable to handle the varied stressors associated with such an appointment. Personally, I am not seeking any formal leadership position, but perhaps there may be other unforeseen impacts by disseminating my emotional struggles. The COVID-19 pandemic was a very tense time in society, and many parental groups and other stakeholders held very strong positions on schools’ handling of public health mandates. I would need to be very tactful in my writing, being cognizant of the diverse audiences that may engage with such a text. A teacher’s autoethnography should perhaps be written not exclusively with academic reviewers in mind, but also consider how parents, colleagues, and/or supervisors may interpret such a project.

I begin to feel overwhelmed with concerns pertaining to this prospective autoethnography. I stop to take a deep breath and a sip of my peppermint tea to reorient my thoughts and feelings. I would really like to proceed as I have a lot to say, and share, and feel there is ample learning possible from exploring the intersections of my lived experience and theory. The academic community would surely benefit from such work and I would also undoubtedly benefit in better understanding how to support my own professional self-efficacy. However, my transparency regarding my own vulnerability may need to be quite limited as I may need to self-censor my vignette to ensure my occupational (or even physical/emotional) safety. Perhaps I could be strategic in crafting my story by being honest in what I share, but also being strategic in purposefully omitting other “sensitive” content. I could also write an autoethnography for personal use, but not disseminate it publicly. But, not sharing research findings seems so counterproductive. I take a deep sigh. Can I share this? I lean back in my office chair, have a sip of my warm tea, and resolve that I will contact my union for further counsel and heed whatever advice is provided to help mitigate these ethical concerns.

Several Weeks Later …

As time elapsed over the course of a few weeks, I was able to seek counsel from both my teachers’ union and academic mentors from my local university. In speaking with my union, I was advised that questions pertaining to the intersections of autoethnography and employment had never been presented and that such an article generally fell outside the purview of my district’s research policy. However, to maintain transparency and to avoid any prospective professional issues, I was advised to share the piece with my senior administration to see if any concerns may be expressed prior to proceeding. I followed this advice, no issues were expressed, and I actually received constructive feedback on the inquiry (e.g., encouraging me to use such a project to reflect on how I can better support my students’ needs moving forward). Further, I contacted a few professor colleagues regarding the ethical dimensions that a teacher autoethnography may entail. While some of my mentors felt a formal ethics review was unnecessary given the limited and generally uninvasive scope of the project, a few suggested pursuing the formal process may be recommended to remain academically diligent. Ultimately, I pursued a formal ethics review and was granted permission to pursue the autoethnographic inquiry of my teaching experiences (Laidlaw, 2024). Although Ellis (2004) recommended seeking consent from characters and/or participants involved in autoethnographic inquiries, this may not be feasible in teacher autoethnographies, as each contextual circumstances will inevitably differ depending on diverse school cultures and political climates, the number of students directly and/or indirectly referenced, the local procedural complexities in attaining parental/guardian consent, and so forth. As such, in my autoethnographic inquiry I decided to not directly reference any individual students, rather reflecting upon my professional experiences navigating a fluctuating school culture, students’ disengagement adhering to pandemic-related protocols, subsequent changes in classroom management, and my incorporation of new pedagogies to mitigate these tensions. Through this method, I adopted Ellis’ (2004) position of “trying to present a realistic portrayal while taking creative license” (p. 341) in formulating this autoethnography to respect students’ anonymity.

Discussion

This vignette illuminated the potentialities and barriers associated with utilizing autoethnography as a public school teacher. Teachers navigate unique occupational circumstances serving the public good, specifically operating under highly visible conditions instructing children and youth, groups acknowledged to be vulnerable sectors of the population (Giroux, 1986; Young et al., 2021). In an era of growing distrust toward the function and perceived ulterior motives of public schools, teachers’ conduct is increasingly interrogated and scrutinized via mainstream and social media fuelling a rhetoric of growing animosity towards educators (Giroux, 2013; Giroux & DiMaggio, 2024). Autoethnography further exacerbates the highly visible nature of teachers’ practices, as confidentiality is not necessarily possible via publishing self-reflective accounts that individually identifies the personal narratives espoused by the author (Lapadat, 2017). Therefore, teachers’ engagement in occupational autoethnography must be approached conscientiously and with considerable thoughtfulness. However, despite various delimiting social and/or organizational barriers impeding teachers’ utilization of autoethnography, there may be invaluable benefits to engage in such research to enhance teachers’ occupational flourishing and agentic potential. To unpack new methodological understandings of how autoethnography intersects with teachers’ professionalism, this discussion section has been categorized under the headings of: (a) autoethnography to advance teachers’ transformative professionalism; (b) social and organizational barriers impeding teacher autoethnography; and (c) navigating ethical considerations in teacher autoethnography.

Autoethnography to Advance Teachers’ Transformative Professionalism

First, I argue that autoethnography has considerable potential to enhance teachers’ transformative professionalism through autonomous, self-initiated critical reflections that may promote ongoing learning. Such reflective learning may consequently lead to adaptations in pedagogy and practice. As noted within the narrative, annual professional learning reflections are mandatory within my school district and serve in lieu of a formal evaluation from an administrator. Therefore, self-reflective writing is already constituted as a part of my official professional teaching practice and is akin to autoethnographic inquiry. Through this vignette, I demonstrated my interest in self-reflective writing to weave theoretical insights into the practical aspects of my job. Reflecting upon new theoretical knowledge on job crafting was of notable interest, as these insights informed my daily practice and helped circumvent my own occupational struggles throughout and following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Autonomy is an apex principle of professionalism (Frostenson, 2015; Sehrawat, 2014) as teachers require autonomy in exercising knowledge, self-directing professional learning, and designing and implementing classroom pedagogies (Sachs, 2003, 2016; Stone-Johnson, 2017). Teachers, as adult learners (Gregson and Sturko, 2007), require the agency to engage in autonomous, self-directed learning trajectories, critically reflecting upon past experiences to inform ongoing learning processes (Schön, 1987; Taylor, 2009). Through self-directed autoethnographic writing, I demonstrated that autoethnography has the potential to foster autonomous learning trajectories that may be of immediate relevance to my practice and serve the contextual needs of my student body. Having such flexibility in reflective writing may consequently support my agentic potential to benefit my practice (e.g., circumventing occupational stressors) and contribute to school community improvements (e.g., reflecting on how to ameliorate local social tensions). Further, teachers are increasingly encouraged to participate in practitioner-based research (e.g., action research, ethnography) to bridge the occupational gaps between theory and praxis (Gutierez & Kim, 2017; Mills, 2007). Self-reflection as a means for professional learning is already routine within many teachers’ practices (Kim & Lee, 2021; Körkkö et al., 2016; Tay et al., 2023). Evidently, autoethnography is consistent within the tenets of transformative professionalism via participation in practitioner-based research (Sachs, 2003) and self-reflecting may serve as an autonomous avenue for professional learning and development (Körkkö et al., 2016; Schön, 1987, 1992). To ensure occupational flourishing, teachers need the competency and capacity to exercise expert knowledge and have autonomy in choosing the trajectories of our own professional learning (not being hindered by social and/or organizational pressures). Therefore, engaging in autoethnography may be an applicable venture to facilitate teachers’ learning and excel as transformative professionals.

Social and Organizational Barriers Impeding Teacher Autoethnography

While autoethnography may advance teachers’ agentic capacities, professionalism as an ideological means of control may inhibit our ability to engage in such practitioner-based forms of research. I argue that teacher autoethnography is markedly limited due to the constraints and threats of organizational professionalism ideology, consequently resulting in varying levels of self-censorship. Within the vignette, my inquiry was being routinely halted by my own anxiety publicly reflecting upon internal operations within my organization. I worried about expressing sentiments that could be construed as a critique of administrative decisions, inequitable organizational structures, or any other behaviours that may be deemed insubordinate. Even this autoethnography, as presented, was mindfully crafted to be presented in a professional manner, the focus and content being strategically considered for final dissemination. I would like to note, however, that I have never personally been reprimanded for expressing critical reflection on my roles as a public school teacher, but as a union activist I am very conscientious in adhering to policy expectations and my own code of professional practice. Regardless, it is through teachers’ exercising their voices that the fundamental nature of schooling processes may be sustained or challenged (Giroux, 1986, 2013). Schön (1992) recognized the immense liberatory potential of teachers’ reflective practices, commenting that teachers engaged in such practices “would feel constrained by and would push against the rule governed system of the school, and in doing so they would be pushing against the theory of knowledge which underlies the school” (p. 334). Controlling teachers’ voice and learning trajectories is a strategic intent of organizational professionalism ideology (Hardy & Melville, 2019) and thus supporting learning reflections may be a precarious endeavour for stakeholders steadfast in their goal to maintain the status quo. Consequently, such organizational professional expectations may silence workers’ perspective and identities (Ertürk, 2023; Mizzi, 2013).

This form of control was further evidenced by the delimiting scope of professional learning reflections, as teachers are continually reminded to prioritize pedagogical practices as our core function and topic of inquiry. As I reflected in the vignette, we received reminders of the upcoming deadline for submitting our annual professional learning reflection, but also to adhere to the parameters of focusing on teaching practice, reflecting upon how new pedagogical approaches enhanced our students’ engagement and learning. Improving teaching practices is, undoubtedly, important, but narrowing such focus is a parochial limitation to my organizational function as a teacher. By reflecting upon and identifying individual/organizational stressors impeding my occupational functioning (Laidlaw, 2024), I have been able to rebound from burnout following the COVID-19 pandemic and am since revitalized. Integrating theoretical insights into the practical aspects of my daily function would seem to be immensely beneficial in improving my effectiveness as a teacher, particularly in my collegial and shared leadership engagements which are also constituted under a transformative professionalism ideology (Evetts, 2011; Frostenson, 2015; Sachs, 2003, 2016). Further, public admission of vulnerability and sharing mental health adversities is perhaps contested and perceived to be unbecoming as a professional, especially among teachers as public figures. As I shared within the vignette, I reflected upon past conversations with colleagues that expressed their apprehension in taking leaves of absences, fearing admission of vulnerability would sabotage their prospects for future career advancement (e.g., emotionally-demanding principal positions). Public dissemination may yield unforeseen outcomes, as Lapadat (2017) notes: “In having the courage to make the private visible, autoethnographers embrace personal vulnerability but cannot know how it will play out as the written material takes on a life of its own” (P. 594). The capacity to be vulnerable is a multifaceted variable in teacher autoethnography, as this introspective endeavour necessitates navigating the socially complex intersections of teacher professionalism regulation, research design parameters, and individual human fragility. Ellis (2004) comprehensively unpacked various emotional struggles in disseminating her autoethnographic novel, recounting adverse lived experiences and making difficult navigational decisions on how to ethically publicize her relational engagements with colleagues and family members. Mizzi (2010) similarly illuminated the “deep emotional stress” (p. 10) that coincided with his facilitation of a multivocal autoethnography, particularly revisiting and publicizing vulnerable lived experiences. It has been a markedly strenuous time for public school teachers, particularly following the profound impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic (Laidlaw, 2023; Sokal et al., 2020). As a teacher, I similarly struggled throughout the autoethnographic writing process in publicising my emotional challenges teaching during the pandemic (Laidlaw, 2024). Evidently, practitioners that are interested in embarking upon an autoethnographic inquiry, but are bound by professional regulations, may need to navigate highly emotional and occupationally complex infrastructures.

Last, as a public school teacher, I was very cognizant of the tense community perceptions of, and resistances toward, public school function in recent times. As unpacked within the vignette, public schools approaches toward the COVID-19 pandemic have been viewed unfavourably among many parental groups. Further, there have been public demonstrations against “woke” educational pedagogies, manifesting as organized student walk-outs and parental protests against LGBTQIA+, anti-racism, and Indigenous education initiatives (Giroux & DiMaggio, 2024). My school community was directly affected by these demonstrations, resulting in high student absenteeism and distrust toward our educational practices. As such, escalating social tensions in an era of rising public distrust toward teachers’ conduct was an influential component in the formulation and analysis of this study. As a teacher operating within a public education system, I needed to be mindful of any content that I publicly disseminated and had to consider how such content could be interpreted by parental communities. Again, I generally felt safe publicly reflecting upon my autoethnographic experiences, but other teachers in other jurisdictions may not be afforded such privileges (particularly depending on geographic location, the positionality of the authors, the scope and focus of their autoethnography learning reflection, among other variables). As teachers are public figures and are increasingly subject to public rebuke and scrutiny (Giroux, 2013; Young et al., 2021), engaging in autoethnography must be approached with robust attentiveness to ensure authors’ physical, emotional, and occupational safety.

Navigating Ethical Considerations in Teacher Autoethnography

A final consideration pertained to navigating the complex ethical obligations of teachers’ professional practice. As demonstrated in the vignette, I cautiously considered the ramifications of discussing my engagements with students, parents, colleagues, and administrators. Corresponding to the personal nature of autoethnography, there are numerous ethical and professional considerations for which teachers must be attentive. First, teachers must be cognizant of their ethical responsibilities when conducting research involving human subjects, including students, parents, colleagues, administrators, and so forth. Although autoethnographic focus is typically centred on the self (Chang, 2008; Ellis et al., 2011; Winkler, 2018), narratives may include sensitive details pertaining to other individuals within and/or external to schools. Wall (2016) reflected upon peer-reviewing autoethnographies and being troubled by the meticulous level of detail shared by some authors without strong indication that participants had been notified or even requested for consent or feedback. The traditional practice among autoethnographers has generally been to seek consent from these individuals prior to publication (Ellis, 2004; Lapadat, 2017). Ellis (2004) described participatory qualities of her autoethnographic ethics process, sharing that not only would she seek consent from the characters/participants portrayed in her vignettes, she would also share her evolving manuscripts with these individuals, soliciting their input and making editions based on their feedback. However, acquiring consent may not always be feasible depending on the complexity or context of the inquiry. This is particularly true depending on the content and context of vulnerable autoethnography (e.g., those involving experiences of violence and harm) (Lapadat, 2017; Wall, 2016). As a public school music teacher, for example, this may not be realistic, particularly if the process entailed soliciting dozens of students’ statements of assent (and subsequent parental/guardian consent). Further, my code of professional practice (Manitoba Teachers’ Society, 2025) mandates teachers to respect “the confidential nature of information concerning students and [to] give the information only to authorized personnel or agencies directly concerned with the individual student’s welfare.” Although teachers’ codes of professional practices will undoubtedly vary among associations and unions, adhering to ethical codes is a consistent component of teacher professionalism (David, 2000; Demirkasimoğlu, 2010; Frostenson, 2015; Hoyle, 2001). Teachers, as public servants and professionally-regulated workers, may be held to higher ethical standards and are not protected by the same academic freedoms afforded to university professors. Therefore, teachers should be exceptionally cognizant of the complex, multifaceted complex ethical considerations in which autoethnography may entail. Teachers engaging in autoethnography must be highly considerate of the nature of educational experiences they disseminate, especially those involving students. Further, there have been growing calls for autoethnographers to seek formal ethical approval from their affiliated institutions prior to engaging in such inquiries, depending on the scope of the inquiry (Chang, 2008; Lapadat, 2017; Wall, 2016). Some teachers may not have access to an ethics review board, particularly those unaffiliated with post-secondary institutions. Thus, limited accessibility to formal ethical review may present as an emerging limitation for teachers’ engagement in (and dissemination of) autoethnography, especially if this expectation becomes a normalized practice associated with the methodology. Further, there are a spectrum of different autoethnographic approaches, ranging from evocative to analytic traditions (Wall, 2016). Anderson’s (2006) analytic approach to autoethnography, for example, necessitates “dialogue with informants beyond the self” (p. 378). Through this method, the analytical autoethnographer must converse with other human subjects to corroborate the author’s reflections and analysis to bolster the trustworthiness of findings. Teacher autoethnographers employing this approach are more likely to require some level of ethical review, especially if prospectively individually identifiable information of youth are shared in vignettes. Navigating these dynamic, but important, ethical considerations are an added complexity to teachers interested in utilizing autoethnography to enhance their professional practice. To help circumvent some of these occupational and ethical tensions, I generated various practical recommendations to aid teachers in the professional learning autoethnographic process.

Recommendations for Practitioners

I generated various recommendations and considerations for teachers interested in engaging in autoethnography to enhance their professional learning and practice. Although these suggestions were specifically tailored to guide public school teachers’ pursuits, such insights may also be relevant to other practitioners operating within regulated professions (e.g., professors, nurses, social workers, and so forth). First, ample consideration must be given to writing autoethnographies that include information pertaining to teachers’ student bodies (especially if these students are minors and are consequently considered a vulnerable sector of the population). Teachers are bestowed with enormous responsibilities to safeguard their student bodies safety and must be cognizant of withholding confidential information (Young et al., 2021). There may be various examples where professional learning autoethnographies may benefit teachers’ practice (e.g., reflecting on implementing critical pedagogies to ameliorate systemic forms of oppression impacting marginalized students’ academic achievement). However, while including students’ testimonies may yield invaluable practical and theoretical insights, inclusion of specific details should be approached with exceptional caution. To alleviate these prospective ethical concerns, teacher autoethnographers should avoid or be highly selective of including explicit examples of individual students’ experiences, prospectively identifiable information, seek assent and/or parental consent if able, use pseudonyms to bolster confidentiality, refer to student bodies via generic language (e.g., “I noticed my students have been disengaged with my traditional pedagogies”), or abstain from mentioning students at all. Second, teacher autoethnographers should be transparent and consider informing their school administration prior to publication. Many school districts have prescribed research policies and, therefore, it is imperative for teachers to be mindful of organizational regulations so as to not prospectively jeopardize their employment. As such, teacher autoethnographers would be recommended to proactively consult with their union/local association to ensure their proceedings are occupationally safe and that their individual rights are not compromised. Further, depending on the scope and nature of a teacher autoethnography, a formal review by an institutional research ethics board may be warranted (Lapadat, 2017). This decision is variable to each contextual circumstance, but may be particularly valid if the research process involves interviewing, artifacts created by human subjects, or if vignettes contain highly identifiable information in relation to the author. Third, teacher autoethnographers must be cognizant of the current political polarization in various school communities, some inquiries may be met with overt resistance and hostility, whether from school administration or teachers’ immediate parental communities. This tension is particularly pronounced in various school districts across the United States, as various states and school boards continue to advance various sinister initiatives, such as book banning or prohibition of discussing anti-oppressive pedagogies (Giroux & DiMaggio, 2024). Unfortunately, marginalized teachers interested in unpacking topics pertaining to social justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion may be disproportionately affected by this issue. As such, the decision to embark upon a teacher autoethnographic inquiry is not solely professional, but also highly personal in nature. While some teachers may feel ethically obliged to engage in anti-oppressive autoethnographies for liberatory purposes (e.g., to support students’ safety and sense of inclusion in public schools), such conduct could prospectively be met with formal and/or informal reprimand. Such decisions should be made by teachers on a case-by-case basis and be dependent on teachers’ level of safety and comfort in being transparently vulnerable. It may be difficult to ascertain how the public documentation of professional experiences may affect teachers’ future aspirations, career trajectories, school relationships, and/or general reputation. As public school teachers are not afforded academic freedom in the similar regard to university professors, teachers would be advised to be strategically tactful in the generation of their vignettes and analysis. Therefore, public expressions of personal vulnerability, organizational critique, and/or other “sensitive” data should be approached conscientiously and dependent on the comfort level of the author. This is a somewhat paradoxical recommendation as autoethnography has foundational evocative roots, emphasizing the emotional aspects of researchers to generate theoretical and practical insights (Wall, 2016; Winkler, 2018) which may, in turn, also be both therapeutic (Lapadat, 2017; Wall, 2016). Conversely, sharing our vulnerabilities via autoethnography may inadvertently lead to unforeseen detrimental occupational circumstances. Thus is the conundrum whereby autoethnography may both bolster teachers’ professionalism (serving as method to facilitate professional reflection and learning) while paradoxically coinciding its impediment (embodying a new avenue for organizational regulation and control over professional practices).

Conclusion

The unique nature of this autoethnography has illuminated the prospective benefits, challenges, procedural complexities, and ethical conundrums associated with teachers utilizing autoethnography as a reflective professional learning tool. Embarking upon autoethnographic reflections may bolster teachers’ autonomous professional learning trajectories and may provide an avenue to integrate theory with practice. While engaging in reflective practices may positively manifest as adult learning and lead to the adoption of new pedagogical/collegial practices, it may also result in unexpected and undesirable outcomes (e.g., employment precarity, limitations in occupational advancement, and/or agitate community unrest). The organizational parameters that outline teachers’ professional function may parochially limit the scope of teachers’ agency, specifically being able to self-direct their learning and their capacity to voice perspectives on their teaching conditions. Last, teachers must be cognizant of, and adhere to, their ethical obligations as outlined in their respective codes of professional practice. Autoethnographies that contain information of human subjects (e.g., students, parents, colleagues, administrators) must be approached with considerable attentiveness as to not breach any professional expectations. This sentiment is notably relevant in an era of growing distrust and animosity toward teachers’ practices. These findings demonstrate considerable insights on the potentialities of autoethnography within the teaching profession, but also highlight various organizational and ethical tensions in which teachers must mindfully navigate throughout the methodological process.