Who better?

This weeks post will be outlining the methodology of autoethnography and its relevancy to my research on Reddit, women and anime.

‘Women should represent women in media’, Megan Kamerick 2011

Researchers are often caught in a tug-of-war between objective and subjective approaches. Quantitative data – numbers and statistics – is considered to be more stable than its qualitative counterpart – interviews and focus groups. One side is labelled scientific, the other considerate (British Library 2014). Both are true, yet both are not. It is unproductive to argue either side in terms of truth-telling. Instead, it is appropriate to consider them in terms of the research you are conducting.

My research will be considering the experiences of women, the illustration of women in anime, and the construction and treatment of women on Reddit. It would not suffice to say women are mentioned so many times, or this many users reference women in this specific way. The experience of every woman is unique and personal, just as every post and illustration is different.

The methodology of autoethnography provides a unique approach to research, which is fitting for such unique experiences. Autoethnography will allow me to reflect upon my personal experience within the anime boards of Reddit. It will allow me to vividly convey the way women are treated, filling the hole in academic research that Jane noted (2014). It is not apt to clinically approach this subject matter as this would diminish the accuracy and integrity of the research. Afterall, as Kamerick noted “How do you tell a woman’s story? You ask her to tell it” (2011).

But of course it is not enough to simply recount personal experiences. While I am not advocating the use of numbers and statistics, the research needs to be grounded in academic thought and theories. This will enable me to step out of the experience, and to reflect and draw conclusions from it. As Ellis et al. describes, autoethnography provides the opportunity to use hindsight to construct research based on personal experience, but grounded in academic theory (2011).

Like any research methodology, there is criticism of the autoethnography approach. Mostly, its validity is questioned due to its reflection on the author and its lack of hard facts. In terms of my own research, I believe its lack of hard facts will benefit the overall result. Traffic stats or content analysis will do little to convey the true nature of these boards. And as for the reflection of the author, who better to tell the story of women than a woman.

Reference List

British Library 2014, ‘Qualitative and Quantitative Research’, viewed 24/9/14, <http://www.bl.uk/bipc/resmark/qualquantresearch/qualquantresearch.html&gt;

Ellis, C, Adams T E &Bochner, A P 2011, ‘Autoethnography: An Overview’, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, vol. 12, no. 1, viewed 24/9/14, <http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095#g4&gt;

Jane, E A 2014, ‘Back to the kitchen, cunt’: speaking the unspeakable about online misogyny’, Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 558 – 570

Kamerick, M 2011, ‘Women should represent women in media’, Ted Talk, September, viewed 24/9/14, <http://www.ted.com/talks/megan_kamerick_women_should_represent_women_in_media&gt;


  1. This is such a great post, I completely agree with you – who better to tell the story of women than a woman? I think that authoethnographic methodology especially lends itself to your research. By immersing yourself in a participatory platform like Reddit you are creating and documenting the experience in a way that an outside observer would not be able to. I like how you delineate between ‘simply recounting personal experiences’ and grounding your research in academic thought and theories as I found this to be a challenge, have you struggled with this? It seems you are trying to combat this by balancing your personal reflections with theory, and I guess that ties back to the criticisms of autoethnographic approach that you noted.


  2. I really liked your post here, but before I continue I just want to quickly mention in the second paragraph you accidentally said “qualitative” data in relation to numerically measurable data when you actually mean “quantitative”. Just a typo I’m sure because you ended up saying qualitative twice with conflicting definitions, but I figured it was worth pointing out before it comes time for marking.

    I found your reflection on your study method to be useful because it acknowledges the strengths and weaknesses of autoethnography in a broader sense than I have seen so far in the unit. I agree with your stance wholeheartedly that women are the best candidates for exploring issues of sexism and gender inequality in all areas. Did you often come across people who hold the opposing view to this in your studies?

    Seeing as you mentioned it, I’m now interested in whether or not you can think of ways you could get numerical data and statistics involved in your study? You opted to not use quantitative methods I take it? Is there a bias for favouring (or even simply feeling more comfortable with) entirely descriptive methods?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s