Summary Of Muncey Autoethnography

After reading Chapter 5 of Muncey’s Creating Autoethnographies and Jones, Adams, and Ellis’ introduction from their Handbook of Autoethnography, it is clear as to what makes a good autoethnography, as well as what makes a weak one. An autoethnography is a type of research method in the field of communication that includes self-reflection and connects oneself to a wider understanding of society through writing. Muncey (2010) suggests that a good autoethnography resonates with its reader, meaning that some part of the text holds the ability to evoke or suggest images, memories, or even emotions. She also suggests that resonance does not just mean “pulling at the heart strings or provoking memories but by eliciting a response to the text
94). This is otherwise known as empathy, and suggests that we need to feel what the author is feeling for an effective autoethnography. We need to be able to step outside of ourselves and imagine what messages the author wants us to understand based on his own feelings. During Poulos’ (2014) vivid memory of visiting his father at the drugstore where he was a pharmacist, I can imagine that scene and feel that the author was excited to see his dad at work, something that I was unable to do when I was growing up. When Poulos (2014) writes, “it’s funny how an image of your dad can be so powerful. He was young. He was strong. He seemed happy. He worked hard. He was devoted to his family. He smiled a lot” (p. 1008), I feel that this memory that has stuck with Poulos now sticks with me as I imagine the rest of the autoethnography as well as the rest of the memories that the author describes so well. The empathetic feeling continues when Poulos describes the moment when his father steps on him. When “he actually makes a point of stepping on [his] chest, grinding his foot in for emphasis… After all, being stepped on may indicate [his] general insignificance” (p. 1010), the pain is felt and there is an attempy to understand why he was feeling insignificant when the man’s own father trampled him. These two moments are some of the clearest in the autoethnography, and it
(2013) suggests is an important characteristic of a good autoethnography. These authors write that using “personal experience to create nuanced and ‘thick descriptions’ of cultural experience in order to facilitate understanding of those experiences” (p. 33), allows readers to put into context what effects this one person has on the messages that culture is describing. In this autoethnography, the author realizes what a father should be after what his father was incapable of giving him. When Poulos (2014) writes that he is the father he lost, the “father of unconditional love… the father who cares for his progeny, who engages his children, who lives in daily dialogue, who keeps the spark alive” (p. 1013), he is writing that his personal experiences from growing up with a poor relationship with his father, or his insider knowledge, has allowed him to realize hat it means to be a good father to his own children. In writing this autoethnography, Poulos recognizes what it means to be a good father in relation to his personal experiences with his own father, and allows him to put what he has discovered into practice with his own