Paul Atkinson's critique of auto-ethnography definition and analytic ethnography

¶ … Paul Atkinson when it comes to the apparent pollution that has occurred when it comes to the topic of auto-ethnography and the definition of the same. At the onset, Atkinson is lauding the work of fellow scholar Anderson and that person's critique of the "tendencies" and patterns that are occurring when it comes to how auto-ethnography is defined, encapsulated and analyzed. In particular, Atkinson wants to look through the lens of analytic ethnography and also eschew the propensity of some people to engage in ethnography work that is "subjective" and/or "evocative." While different scholars are certainly entitled to their own perspectives, there is something to be said for keeping different work on the same subject within the same basic parameters so that terms and standards mean something (Atkinson, 2006).

Analysis

As stated in the introduction, Atkinson gets to his point about ethnography and auto-ethnography up front. He feels, per this article from 2006, that the definition and lens of ethnography has become muddled and confused due to the subjectivity and evocative desires of other practitioners when it comes to this realm of scholarship. In other words, his objective is clearly to clearly and concisely define the relevant terms as he sees them and he uses his counterpart Anderson as verification that he is right in what he believes. When it comes to the theoretical framework that he relies upon, Atkinson further points out that the term "positivist" has become so watered down and "debased," the word has lost a lot of its validity and meaning. He supports this by looping in earlier works in the subject including that from Shaw, Heyl, Klockars and Bogdan. Just one concept from the theoretical framework that Atkinson makes it a point to point out is that "sociologists and anthropologists were unrealistically wedded to an ideal of entirely impersonal and dispassionate fieldwork" (Atkinson, 2008). Indeed, being detached and objective is not the least bit unrealistic or unprofessional. On the other hand, being too attached or connected to such work can be quite dangerous when it comes to the impartiality and efficacy of research (Atkinson, 2006).

As should be clear from the above, Atkin's modus operandi is clearly the use of a literature review of the works that align with his theories and views about the field of ethnography. Her aligns himself with sources that depart from the more modern view that ethnography methodology of the past is misguided and/or incomplete. The data sources used are clearly scholarly works from the past including journals and books that are considered authoritative and representative of the prior bodies of work. At the same time, there seems to have been a shift in the field in recent years and much of the work cited by Atkinson is older rather than newer. The result is clearly that Atkinson wants to clarify and redefine the field in its modern context and he clearly disagrees with the opinions on the subject that others have (Atkinson, 2006).