Ethical Approaches To Ellingson's Autoethnography

For autoethnographies to be ethical the autoethnographer must obtain consent from those who will be included in the text before it is written, protect the confidentiality of the people depicted in the text, and recognize that the people mentioned in the autoethnography as well as themselves could be harmed by a publication. When comparing Jago (2011) to Ellingson (1998), it is demonstrated that Ellingson’s autoethnography is more ethical because it follows these guiding ethical principles more successfully. The first criterion for an ethical autoethnography is that consent must be sought from those who are written into an autoethnography before the text is written. Tolich (2010), points out the problem that arises when consent is sought after
a manuscript is written, “[Seeking retrospective consent] creates a natural conflict of interests between an author’s publication and the rights of persons mentioned, with the author’s interest unfairly favored over another” (p.1601). Approaching a person with a completed manuscript, then asking for their consent to publish it will likely cause them to consider the author’s time and effort put into writing over their own desires about what they would be comfortable with being published. Jago considers seeking Mary’s consent to publish the autoethnography, only after the manuscript is completed.
This action would be coercive, if Jago even decided to show Mary the completed autoethnography. However, Jago (2011) makes her decision not share her manuscript clear, “I think the risks of sharing my story with Mary far outweigh the possible benefits. I am going to get this story published, without showing it to Mary (or Michael) beforehand” (p.217). A central subject of the autoethnography is never made aware that she was written and published about, and she obviously was given no opportunity to consent to it. This makes Jago’s autoethnography extremely unethical. On the other hand, Ellingson’s autoethnography shows that she received consent before writing about the patients she met, since this autoethnography was written in conjunction with scholarly research about medical communications. It is incredibly likely Ellingson took great care to get consent, because this is a requirement of social scientific research. The patients granting their consent is demonstrated in a narrative part of the autoethnography, “Sandra [a clinic nurse] shakes Mr. Davis’s hand and then his wife’s. ‘This is Laura, she is a Ph.D. student in the communication school, and she’s going to listen to how we communicate, if that’s all right’” (Ellingson, 1998, p.497) to which Mr. Davis responds “Sure, okay,” (Ellingson, 1998, p.497). Since Ellingson received consent from the subjects of her
autoethnography, her piece is clearly more ethical than Jago’s piece. The second criterion is that autoethnographers must protect the confidentiality of the people depicted in their writing. Pseudonyms are not sufficient to protect people mentioned in the text. This is because they only protect against identification by outsiders, not what Tolich (2010) terms “internal confidentiality” which is when “confidences [are] exposed among the participants themselves” (p.1606). When writing about personal subjects, people who know the autoethnographer could be able to deduce who was written about, even when pseudonyms are used. Jago (2011) notes that she “use[s] pseudonyms to protect the identity of some of the people depicted in this story” (p.218). This is not sufficient to protect the identities of those in the autoethnography, and is ethically unsound, especially when considering the lack of consent Jago sought to publish writing about the people depicted in the first place. Ellingson (1998) notes that she also uses pseudonyms, “[a]ll names of patients and staff members at the clinic where I conducted my fieldwork have been changed to ensure confidentiality. Names of the physicians involved in my own treatment also have been changed to protect their privacy” (p.512). However, since Ellingson is further removed from her subjects than Jago is. While is Jago is writing about people she lives with, that could be easily be identified by those who know her personally, Ellingson is writing about patients and employees of clinics, which a pseudonym would provide significantly stronger protection for, since they are not a recurring part of Ellingson’s life. This makes Ellingson’s use of pseudonyms more ethically sound that Jago’s use of them.
The third criterion for an ethical autoethnography is that the autoethnographer must recognize that all the subjects, including themselves, in their writing could potentially be harmed by a publication. Tolich (2010), emphasizes that autoethnographers practice “anticipatory ethics” (p.1600), by giving possible ethical issues consideration, so they can weigh the possible harms of publication and how to address them before proceeding with the project. By publishing personal stories, autoethnographers choose to make personal information about themselves and others permanently available to the public.
In her autoethnography, Jago (2011), does practice “anticipatory ethics” (Tolich, 2010, p.1600).
She spends a considerable amount of the piece deciding if she should show her partner’s daughter, Mary, what she has written, since Mary is a focal point in her story, or if she should even publish the piece at all. She acknowledges the ethical issue with her autoethnography, that “[Mary] needs to know what I am writing and if she wants, she can write a response” (Jago, 2011 p.217). Clearly, Jago has anticipated that it is ethically important that Mary is able to share her point of view in the narrative and her input on how she is represented. Unlike Jago, Ellingson (1998) did not address in her autoethnography if she went through a process of “anticipatory ethics” (Tolich, 2010, p.1600). Since Jago shows that she considered the ethical implications of her autoethnography, it can be argued that her piece follows this ethics criterion better than Ellingson’s piece. However, it must be considered that Jago failed to act properly on the ethical problems she identified. She does not allow Mary to read the autoethnography or consent to its publication. In contrast, Ellingson (1998) does explain the context in which her autoethnography was written, “From September to December 1997, I conducted the first stage of a long-term project, engaging in participant observation with the senior adult oncology program at a large cancer research center in the South” (p.495). This would imply that
her entire project was subject to review by an institutional review board, since “graduate research is bound by IRBs” (Tolich, 2010, p.1606) and that it is mentioned later in the autoethnography that Ellingson was doing this research as a Ph.D. student (Ellingson, 1998, p.497). Since Ellingson’s entire project was subject to review, ethical considerations were clearly addressed before her research was permitted. Jago’s research was not subjected to outside review before she began the project, and she failed to properly consider and address the ethical issues on her own, which makes Ellingson’s autoethnography ultimately more ethical under this criterion.
When considering each aspect of what makes an autoethnography ethical, Ellingson’s piece demonstrates a more competent way of addressing ethical problems than Jago’s piece. This is because while Ellingson receives consent from her subjects, protects her subjects’ confidentiality, and addresses ethical complications in the research, Jago did not receive consent from Mary, a major subject in her autoethnography, does not use an effective method to protect her subjects’ confidentiality, and considers but does not address the ethical issues she identifies in her own research.