Emotions Re-visited: Autoethnographic Reflections on a Qualitative PhD Thesis Using Semi-Structured Interviews. A Tale of Politicians, Professors and Ombudsmen

AuthorDr Sabine Carl

Introduction

When this author was approached by the then chair of the early-stages and post-graduate researchers working group (EPER) of the European Society of the Criminology with the idea of hosting an autoethnographic panel at the Eurocrim 2014 in Prague, some very careful review of the debate started, in the field of criminology, by Jewkes (2011: 63) preceded any commitment. In light of the ‘tradition of relative silence amongst researchers on the experience of undertaking in-depth ethnographic work’ in criminology and the resultant ‘gap in the methods literature on what to expect when carrying out research in the field’ (Sloan and Drake, 2010: 24) the demand for such a panel was easily apparent. The unprecedented level of attendance reaffirmed the thirst for guidance on ‘how to process and utilise their emotional experiences’ (ibid). As social research is a ‘craft occupation, in a large part “learned on the job” through apprenticeship, experience, trial, and error’ (Seale, 1999: 475), this knowledge gap exists principally for early-stages researchers.

This is where the value of autoethnographic writing as a way of knowledge transfer sets in. To recall a quote ascribed to Otto von Bismarck, ‘Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.’ Accordingly, this author willingly offers up personal reflection for the advancement of others. To avoid the label of narcissistic navel-gazing often ascribed to autoethnographic writings, this fool aims to hop, skip and jump right over the ‘stage’ of evocative autoethnography with its goal of creating a ‘shared emotional space through autoethnographic stories, poetry, images or prose’ to analytic autoethnography with its ‘greater commitment to the critical and analytical spirit of realist ethnography’ that ‘[…] is not so much a method of self-investigation, but a technique of social investigation conducted through the self’ (Wakeman, 2014: 707).

Analytic autoethnography has been selected since this author neither intends to benefit her soul by means of a confessional tale (Peshkin, 1988: 17) nor to perpetuate a ‘sort of positivist fraud’ (Ferrell, 2012: 218) by clinging to the chimera of objectivity. Instead, this article aims for a middle ground along the long continuum that stretches between these two scholarly impossibilities (ibid) hoping to derive meaning by establishing a joint emotional space, created through sharing of lived experience, that forms ‘the basis of analysis rather than constitute[s] the account’ (Liebling, 2014: 484). Since ‘reflexivity is a process which continues long after leaving the field and completing the research’ (Lumsden, 2012: 4), it comes as no surprise that since the memento of academic self-reflection generated for the 2014 presentation in Prague, approximately two years after shipping the thesis manuscript off to the publishing house, this author has since progressed along the road of autoethnographic understanding that shall now be shared with the intent of benefitting others.

This article will first discuss the specific purpose and value of and approach to criminological autoethnography. This is followed by a brief depiction of the research type and an analysis of this author’s motivation for the conducted research. The scrutiny moves on to the revisited emotions experienced during and after the three semi-structured interviews conducted during the fieldwork. It will then go further by also including, as (self)-perspectives gained, reflections on research outcome concluding with a set of questions designed to assist the reflection process of early-stage researchers.

Value, Purpose and approach

Is it still necessary to defend the value of autoethnography? The answer appears to depend heavily on both the timing of the question as well as the quantitative or qualitative preferences within a specific scholarly discipline. While the autoethnographic turn reached social sciences such as educational sciences well before the end of the last century (Peshkin, 1988; Lumsden, 2012), ‘[w]ithin criminological research, the positivist roots of the discipline still assert a strong hold, and emotions such as confusion and empathy are more likely to be condemned than cherished. Anomalies and contradictions may well be ignored, made invisible or denounced’ (Farrant, 2014: 465). Due to the courageous interdisciplinary cross-fertilization efforts initiated by Jewkes and others this stronghold is currently under on-going attack.

The purpose of autoethnography, and with it the purpose of this piece, can be determined either from a researcher, or a research-focused perspective. While the former caters more to the interest of early-stages researchers, the latter serves to improve the quality of research itself. While every researcher and research situation is unique, reading the accounts of other researchers may serve as a preparatory instrument. This is due to the fact that ‘rich description is akin to actual experience’ in allowing to anticipate the own emotional response as well as the confusing blurring of professional and personal identities determined by and in turn influencing the “inner worlds” of fieldworkers (Liebling, 2014: 481; Jewkes, 2011: 65). Wherever this ‘discovery of the self through the detour of the other’ (Hunt, 1989: 42) breeches the level of the subconscious and is made explicit, it may prevent an over-emphasis on researcher voice, which still leaves much academic latitude for autoethnographies to ‘vary in their emphasis on the writing and research process (graphy), culture (ethnos), and self (auto)’ (Reed-Danahy, 1997: 2). The acknowledgement of subjectivity humanizes the emotionally sterile research process and enriches the analysis by accepting feelings as ‘reasonable - and hence rational - subjective judgements about objective experiential worlds’ (Yar, 2009: 8). As ‘authors use their particular knowledge and experience to illustrate problems with and failures in extant research’ this acts to fill ‘experiential “gaps”’ (Ellis, 2014: 262). Consequently, ‘[a]mbiguity, anomalies, complexities, and contradictions rather than being “matter out of place” […] became fruitful sites of analysis and research practice’ (Farrant, 2014: 462). The positive outcome of this process, that includes acknowledging the underlying motivations for research interest, is the generation of ‘honest’ knowledge. If we are conscious of how we and others ‘“I-witness” our own reality constructions’ (Spry, 2011:706) it alleviates the inherent flaw that ‘[…] while ethnography can and should be carefully attuned to the dynamic of groups and situations, it cannot be made to be “objective” - it cannot be honestly divorced from the ethnographer’s own reflexive presence in the research process’ (Ferrel, 2012: 218).

How then is this meaningful reflection on the links between our emotional and biographical experiences and the outcomes of our research to be achieved (sic. Lumsden, 2012: 3) since subjectivity in itself is irremovable? While this author did not follow the approach...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT