Analytical Framework

Before I undertook writing this book, I had never heard of the term “autoethnography”. I have, of course, read a number of memoirs and autobiographies of diplomats recounting their experiences. In fact, during a seminar on the same topic where I presented the results of my study, many in the audience, including professors, had mistaken my work as an autobiography. I took pains then, as I do now, to make a differentiation between autoethnography and other genres of reflective writing.

Auto-what? was my initial response when a professor from the University of the Philippines Open University, Dr Jean Saludadez, suggested it to me. As I read up on the research method, I came to realize that this analytical framework was the perfect way to guide me in writing this book. I also came to the conclusion that many people were like me, either ignorant of the existence of such a beautiful research method or knowing about it but dismissing it as a second-rate framework that does not merit being placed side-by-side more formal, more “academic-sounding” approaches.

Autoethnography is a valid research method. I take inspiration from Ellis, Adams, and Bochner (2011) who define autoethnography as a type of research that seeks to describe and systematically analyse the researcher’s personal experiences in order to understand cultural phenomena. They rationalize that autoethnography goes beyond data, but attempts to combine personal experiences with methodological tools. They popularized autoethnography as an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyse personal experience as a valid method of research. There should be no shame nor guilt in using personal narratives and perspectives in the quest for truth and knowledge, they say, and instead, regard the result of such a method as one that best approximates the truth, being based on personal experiences.

The Handbook of Autoethnography by Jones, Adams and Ellis (2016) distinguishes autoethnography from ordinary emotive writing by citing four of its characteristics, namely: (i) purposefully commenting on/ critiquing culture and cultural practices; (ii) making contributions to existing research; (iii) embracing vulnerability and purpose; and (iv) creating a reciprocal relation with the audience.

Careful not to be dismissed as another boring memoir of a retired diplomat, I take pains to incorporate the above-mentioned characteristics and goals into my book.