Autoethnographic writing, in accounting for the subjectivities through which observers engage with culture, encourages researchers to accept the experiences of engaged participants as contributing to academic epistemology, alongside the use of “impartial” observation, in substantial and meaningful ways. These methods, unlike those of a more traditional or empirical bent, document the lived experiences of researchers as they confront cultural externalities, acknowledge the limitations of so-called objective science, and present the anxieties felt by cultural subjects as meaningful realities, mattering both to the individual and in a broader social context.
Practitioners of autoethnography should beware, however, of thinking that their experiences are commonplace. Autoethnographic documents come no closer to the establishment of universal truth than more conventional research methods. Moreover, even when some biases are acknowledged, autoethnography is subject to a suite of prejudices and cultural influences, as well as subconscious personal tendencies, of which a researcher may not be fully cognizant. An experience had at a certain age, for example, may condition a researcher to respond to a given circumstance in a highly idiosyncratic way. Thus, an autoethnographer who writes that an adult experience played a major role in her development of ethnic or gendered consciousness might unwittingly disregard earlier experiences that were ultimately more formative.