TITLE Playing with the metaphysical foundations of a self-related ethnographic study ( autoethnography )

This article emphasises the academic possibilities of autoethnography using a philosophical and theoretical framework to underpin it. The author uses a proposed research project to illustrate how and why autoethnography should be considered an academic methodology appropriate for a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) study. Crotty’s (1998) research paradigm model informs the author’s theoretical framework with a focus on Social Constructionism and Symbolic Interactionism as it’s foundations. The intention of the article is to encourage other doctoral candidates to consider the scholarly attributes of autoethnography for their own research endeavours through the utilisation of an interpretivist research paradigm. As a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) candidate, I currently spend much of my time reading and thinking about methodology and various philosophical underpinnings for academic research. It is one thing, however, to decide on a topic for a thesis, identify any gaps in one’s area of interest and find a supervisor willing to take you on. Though, once one is on the PhD programme itself, it is time to finalise a methodology and not only the theoretical approach, but the metaphysical one. When I originally applied for my PhD, I submitted a positivist quantitative approach to my area of interest, mental health. Why? Because I thought I would sound more scholarly and would be more likely to be accepted onto the programme. However, I am innately of the qualitative discipline and am more comfortable with interpretive data as opposed to quantifiable statistics when answering academic questions. While I was studying for my master’s degree in Applied Positive Psychology, I was required to apply the positive psychological theories to myself in what I now know was an autoethnographic manner. Whilst reading around interpretive inquiry and phenomenology for the taught modules on my PhD I identified autoethnography as a legitimate methodology. The enthusiasm for my newly found legitimised methodology and the abatement of self-perceived pressure to conform to positivism that I feel is profound. The structure of PhD programmes differs around the globe in terms of how to apply and how they are executed. I am currently going into my second year of the Mental Health pathway at Lancaster University (in the United Kingdom), where they offer a part-time blended distance learning programme. The first two years are taught modules, honing and developing all the necessary academic research skills needed for an advanced degree. The taught modules allow students to explore methodologies that were perhaps not considered previously, although I have an academic tutor, a thesis supervisor will not be allocated until the end of year two. This means that unlike some PhD programmes, students have the luxury of being able to adjust research proposals to incorporate any new academic research knowledge. My formal research proposal will be somewhat different to that of the one I presented on application to the programme, primarily due to my introduction to autoethnography proper. While (virtually) attending the International Conference of Autoethnography in July of this year (2021), the difficulty of having an autoethnographic study accepted as a PhD methodology was repeatedly referenced. This included a fantastic presentation by Ann-Mari Lofthus on her paper (2020) about rejection in academia. There are also articles and case studies that have been published on the difficulty of having an autoethnography accepted as ‘academic enough’ for research (Brown, 2014). This could potentially be due to a lack of understanding of the prospective theoretical foundations of autoethnography and how the impact of first-person account inquiry can still be considered rigorous research. Although autoethnography is becoming more mainstream as evidenced by my recent conference attendance and the inclusion of articles such as the one you are now reading in quality academic journals. There still lacks a plethora of academic ‘how-to’ on the practice of automethodologies and the metaphysical elements that come with a PhD study utilising them. The purpose of the current article is to show how interpretive philosophical foundations can be used to explicate the social world we exist in and how a PhD thesis can apply these understandings using a self-related ethnographic study. My intention is to highlight the academic and metaphysical implications of utilising autoethnography for a PhD thesis, therefore, the focus will be on the philosophical and theoretical approaches anticipated to be used in a proposed research project. I will begin with a brief background on my proposed research and an introduction to Analytic Autoethnography (Anderson, 2006) for those who are unfamiliar with it, followed by the structure of the research paradigm identified as appropriate and finally an exploration of the elements of said paradigm.