Interview with Bedrettin Yazan on autoethnography: Its application to research and pedagogy in language teacher education

This research brief summarizes an interview with Professor Bedrettin Yazan on the topic of autoethnography. Autoethnography has recently gained significant attention in language education research (see Keleş, 2022a), making this interview a timely exploration of its contributions to both teaching and research. Professor Yazan is a prominent scholar in the integration of autoethnography into language teacher education. This brief aims to share his perspectives on autoethnography's role in research and pedagogy while offering practical suggestions and resources for readers interested in leveraging its potential in their own research and teaching practices. It all began in 2014 when I was first introduced to autoethnography, specifically Suresh Canagarajah's (2012) work, which was likely the first autoethnography published in TESOL Quarterly. At the time, a few other PhD students and I from the University of Maryland were preparing for a panel presentation at the TESOL Convention. This experience was truly eye-opening for me because, until then, I hadn't believed that my own experiences—how I viewed the profession or navigated the discourses of the field—could be of importance to others. Scholars have been discussing and exploring autoethnography for a long time in fields like anthropology and communication studies. There are two editions of the Handbook of Autoethnography, and there is even a Journal of Autoethnography. The field is progressing rapidly outside of TESOL. Perhaps my small contribution has been incorporating autoethnography as a pedagogical activity, rather than just a research method, into teacher education. That might be my modest contribution to the field. Scholars and reference books describe autoethnography through its three core elements: auto (self), ethno (culture), and graphy (writing/narrative). All three components must be present. Auto refers to the self; the research should explore deeply into the researcher's own experiences and their interactions with others. Autoethnography examines the intersection between the self, others, and broader discourses. However, there is no prescribed way for how it should be examined or written. Depending on who you ask, some may lean towards literary narratives, dialogic writing, poetry, or even writing that incorporates illustrations, images, and arts. The auto part is relatively easy—you tell stories about yourself. However, the ethno part, the cultural or discursive critique that the author brings through their personal experiences, is often missing. When I see an autoethnography without this critical aspect, without the examination of culture, it feels incomplete. This is what Chang (2008) refers to: without a critical examination of culture through personal stories, it's simply a personal narrative. One common misconception is that autoethnography is easy to write. I believe everyone starting to write autoethnography must acknowledge that it is incredibly difficult—not only in terms of revisiting past memories, but also in critically analyzing them. You never know what you'll uncover, and the process of analyzing those memories adds another layer of complexity. Tami Spry (2001), in her article, mentions that autoethnography is not just about telling a story; it requires weaving theory into the narrative. That's much easier said than done. Telling your story and then integrating theory and analysis is incredibly challenging. But then, it can take years to complete and revise because it's really difficult to let go of the story. I am currently working with colleagues from Germany and Turkey who use autoethnography in their classes. Both have mentioned that some students found it very difficult to discuss their past experiences. This challenge may be especially true for those who have lived through difficult times and in difficult places. I believe this is a significant issue from a research perspective. There are multiple really good methods books on autoethnography, such as Chang (2008), and then collaborative autoethnography by Chang et al. (2016). Adams et al. (2015) is very helpful. One of the best articles that I recommend to my students is Fall (2019) in Teacher Education Quarterly. As a multilingual speaker, she used translingualism as a framework and includes multimodal data such as text messages. Another one is Tami Spry's article published in Qualitative Inquiry in 2001 on performative autoethnography. She argued for the role of autoethnography in leading the reader to engage in critical self-reflexivity by resonating with the reader through their stories. For this, autoethnographers themselves need to engage in their own critical self-reflexivity, which requires emotional engagement and revealing and sharing their vulnerability. And a book, Evocative Autoethnography by Bochner and Ellis (2016) is a good reference, and the authors take the feelings to the reader and examine them critically. While critical autoethnography is often considered a separate term, I believe that all autoethnographies should be critical in nature. They should address hierarchies and discourses, exploring how ideologies create these hierarchies and power relations. In this way, autoethnography serves as a critical research methodology. Chang (2008) and Adams et al. (2015) are taking the researcher from the beginning to the end of the autoethnography process. Chang is closer to the traditional qualitative research orientation. Adams et al. is pushing a little towards somewhere between literary work and autoethnography. Either one is a great resource which would work for the researchers themselves. About the methods books on autoethnography, if researchers really are interested in using them, my recent book (Yazan, 2024) may be a good resource. It is a shorter resource or the resource to open up for other resources that might help them as well. Additionally, there is a very talented scholar, Phiona Stanley, who has done an autoethnography book (2017) and a few edited volumes. Stanley's (2019) chapter talks about ethnography and autoethnography together. Sue Starfield's (2019) chapter about autoethnography and critical ethnography in another handbook is a good resource. From a research perspective, we often discuss the epistemological orientation of the researcher. To begin with, researchers should reflect on whether their epistemological orientation aligns with autoethnography, as it may not always be a fit. Our researcher identities and the methods we use should be in alignment. Otherwise, they may feel external to who we are. That's why I believe the first reflection should be on “What kind of researcher am I?” and “What is my epistemological orientation?” before deciding to write an autoethnography. It's quite challenging to start talking about ourselves, our own experiences, and our stories, and then analyze them. It is a long process, and sometimes it can be difficult to let go and submit the work for publication. Reading published autoethnographies as examples and observing how auto, ethno, and graphy come together, you can notice how authors write in a way that destabilizes the reader, provoking reactions like “Oh, my goodness!” or “What's happening?” This invites the reader to feel the presence of the author and experience their self-reflexivity through the paper. Autoethnography is a method. It is a methodology. It's not a content topic. When we use it in teacher education, it might become like an identity-oriented or emotion-oriented, an agency-oriented teacher learning activity, which is a nice part that I really enjoy. But one thing I need to share is that many people use literacy autobiographies or language learning autobiographies in their teacher education classes. In many cases, those literacy autobiographies may include autoethnographic features, but I believe they can still be called autobiographies. For example, Suresh Canagarajah's (2020) book on translingual or transnational literacy autobiographies, or the book he wrote with his students at Penn State, serve as good examples. I think these autobiographies contain many autoethnographic features, though he provides a long explanation in the introduction (Canagarajah, 2020) as to why he chose not to call them autoethnographies. What I did by creating a pedagogical tool from autoethnography in my teaching was to extend the literacy autobiography. It wasn't completely revolutionary because literacy autobiographies have been around. I had seen people using autobiographies and autoethnographies, so I thought, why not combine them to create a new tool for teacher learning? This tool would focus on guiding teacher learning or identity development, especially with connections to agency and emotions. I was building on what was already present in the field. We can't create something entirely new from scratch; instead, we can extend the wonderful examples and experiences already available in the field. In my articles (Yazan, 2019a,b,c, 2022a,b; Yazan et al., 2021), I shared my experiences of using autoethnography with language teachers. The articles by Matt Kessler (2024) and Ekaterina Arshavskaya and her colleague (2023) would also be good examples to check out. My former student, Ufuk Keleş, has done great work on autoethnography, both in research and pedagogy. His article (Keleş, 2022b) on a modest proposal for good autoethnography in educational research is highly recommended. Ufuk and I have collaborated on several projects (e.g., Yazan & Keleş, 2024), which may also be useful. If readers are interested in any of these articles, I'm always happy to share resources with those who are interested. Professor Yazan concluded this informative and insightful interview by summarizing his approach to autoethnography: “Autoethnography has core characteristics, but it follows a non- prescriptive list.” Q1: Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed for the TESOL Journal Research Briefs. I'm very excited to have this opportunity to ask you a few questions about your research experiences. Could you please tell us about yourself including your teaching experiences and research interests, and how you became interested in doing autoethnography? Q2: You are one of the key researchers who are doing autoethnography in language education. Could you please explain to the TESOL Journal readership the term/meaning of autoethnography and how it is similar to or different from other research methods? Q3: From your perspective, how has research on autoethnography evolved over the years, and what areas/trends have developed? Could you please share some exemplary work, including yours? Q4: Relevant to the previous question, how do you envision autoethnography would benefit language educators? What kinds of pedagogical implications it may have in the language classroom and language teacher education? Q5: Finally, could you please share with us some practical suggestions and advice for language educators who are interested in conducting an autoethnography? (e.g., how to overcome some challenges, or great topics to be explored). Juyoung Song is a professor in TESOL/English at Murray State University. Her research interests include language education in its sociocultural context, particularly issues regarding language ideology, identity, and emotion. She has published numerous articles on multilingualism and teacher education and practice. Bedrettin Yazan is an associate professor in the Department of Bicultural-Bilingual Studies at the University of Texas at San Antonio. His research focuses on language teacher learning and identity, collaboration between ESL and content teachers, and world Englishes. Methodologically he is interested in critical autoethnography, narrative inquiry, and qualitative case study.