It is with relief that I learn that it doesn't matter if I call my methodology scholarly personal narrative or autoethnography. My advisor doesn't think either meets the standards of rigor for information systems research.
Is he right? Is anyone doing SPN/autoethnography in information systems research? And if they are, are they being rightfully laughed out of the field?
I suppose there are worse ways a guy could spend couple days in December. The IFIP Working Group 8.2 is holding its Organizations and Society in Information Systems (OASIS) 2009 workshop in Phoenix on December 15 (Oasis... Phoenix... get it?). The program is being held in conjunction with the big ICIS 2009 conference.
A common theme in Nash's (2004) advocacy of scholarly personal narrative is the desire of his graduate students to write about their experiences. This desire is no mere self-absorption (although Ellis [1997, pp. 122-123] has something to say about that). Nash's graduate students include lots of practitioners, folks who've taught and coached and administered for years. They bring a wealth of professional and personal experience to the classroom and to their research.
I read Ellis (1997), a brilliant example of "dialogic, multivocal narrative," and my antennae go all criss-cross haywire and pick up three channels at once. "Dialogic, multivocal narrative" is central to scholarly personal narrative, social knowledge management, and the online dissertation.
Kincheloe (1997) swings the big hammer for critical constructivism. There's a paragraph where he brands traditional positivist methods "fraudulent" (his italics!) in their assertion that "there is a correct way to represent reality" (p. 59).
Recent comments
43 weeks 5 hours ago
45 weeks 1 day ago
49 weeks 3 days ago