By analysing my previous blog post discussing my own autoethnographic study undertaken during the opening weeks of this semester, and comparing my own evaluations and comments to the various key points in the Ellis et al. (2011) reading, It definitely makes it easier to understand the obstacles and the struggles of undertaking my own autethnographic research were also experienced similarly by other researchers both from the past and in the present.
The Ellis et al. (2011) reading is quoted as saying that “when we conduct and write research, we implicate others in our work””, this is a perfect example of using the live-tweeting in our autoethnographic research and studies. The live-tweeting was a collaborative process in which we all curated our own content and research and shared it among one another.
Through the reading I also noticed that people wish to hold autoethnography to a criteria that is normally used and applied to normal ethnography and autobiographies. I believe it is important that this is not something enforced when researching and improving as students in our autoethnographical studies, as developing these skills will be far better benefited when experimenting and researching for ourselves, rather than sticking to a particular or prescribed framework.
It is however, when talking about autoethnography, hard to describe as a study personally, However Ellis in the reading provides a very through description.
After assessing my post, and the rest of my work throughout the semester, I have been able to come to the conclusion that my autoethnograpic skills have still continued to progressively improve. By stating the areas where I struggled as well as other difficulties and misunderstandings, I have thus been able to grow from there, and acknowledge the learning process I have undertaken along the way. My studies have by far improved as my confidence and ability also did.