Solipsism, self-indulgence and circular arguments: why autoethnography promises much more than it delivers

The author reflects about autoethnography in a very extreme way, specially when he refer to what should be written on a autoethnographic paper.
On the one hand, I agree with him when he said that AE can’t tell everything as for example about masturbation as he referred on page 220, or how he “got from factory floors and building sites to university common rooms and from the Sussex coast to West Australia, and what [he] lost along the way?”. There’s no point in saying this, if there’s no relevance in the way one’s uses AE.

In my research, AE allow me to, not only, document all my process of composition and what inspired me for a specific piece of music, but also, works as a tool to compose and unlock possible problems that may have or may not in the process of composition. So I’m assuming AE as a process of composition it self.

In my opinion, AE should be use as a way of research and not to tell stories that can and may appear in Opra TV show. That’s why is important to separate what it matters and what doesn’t.

The author on page 222 refers


 In response to this: that’s is why AE is good. One can write about what was done - something that may be important for you and for others - then, it’s possible to alanyse what was written with other perspective. That’s why AE can work and be interesting as a research methodology.