Auto-ethno

One feedback Mam Jean of my EDDE 206 is this: that I could have made an autoethnographic research out the Comm site paper. How could she have known what I was trying to do which I didn't know I was doing? In other words, I knew that I can do that paper on my own but I wasn't sure I was doing the right thing. For one, it bothered me ab it to have to write something about a VC which I didn't start out nor authored in the first place so I wanted to give credit to that. So I felt that the right thing to do was to get the site author as my co writer. Then in the midst of writing the paper, I was torn between writing about my experiences (or should I say using my own voice to speak up) and instead went for the voices of other members of the community site. I also wanted to find out how the site author viewed my usage of the site hence I went for his perspective of looking at the VC when what I could have done is to go with my instincts to critically analyze my lived experiences as an active site member with an online identity and shared connection equally evolving alongside others' members and it just so happened that I was the one in the position to look at our experiences in that way.

Hence the purposes of autoethnography. I think it does not deny the presence of the self as it is too important to deny in the first place. The researcher cannot be faulted at that. In the case of an autoethnographic researcher, it acknowledges the researcher as community member=CMR=community/complete member researcher (Anderson, 2006)