Autoethnography and poetic enquiry

Xuan Minh Ngo

Thursday 3 July 2025

Featured expert: Dr Ngoc Quynh Anh Phan, University of Kent, UK

Interviewer and editor: Dr Xuan Minh Ngo, University of St Andrews, UK

This edition of Sociocultural Chats features Dr. Ngoc Quynh Anh Phan, a Lecturer in Higher Education at the University of Kent with extensive experience in critical autoethnography and arts-based research. Whether you’re new to these approaches or looking for fresh insight, her reflections offer encouragement, honesty, and rich insights into writing the self in research.

Entry into Autoethnography and Poetic Enquiry

Minh: Dr. Phan, thank you so much for joining us. What drew you specifically to autoethnography, and later to poetic enquiry?

Quynh Anh: Thank you for having me. Please call me Quynh Anh. I was first introduced to autoethnography and poetic enquiry by my PhD supervisors, Professor Toni Bruce and Dr Esther Fitzpatrick from The University of Auckland, NZ. They are experts on these methodologies, so they encouraged me to explore autoethnography and poetic enquiry, too. They shared materials with me, and I found it so interesting to read about people’s experiences from their own perspectives, how they analysed their lives, engaged with the literature, and made sense of their experiences through that lens. I became curious about myself: How could I articulate my own experiences of mobility and migration while also engaging analytically with existing scholarship?

In short, my supervisors encouraged me to start by writing about myself. Their advice was that you need to understand your own experiences before you can fully engage with others who have been through something similar. By doing so, you also come to understand your own positioning, and that can shape how you analyse the data you later collect from other people.

Minh: Many postgraduate students are interested in autoethnography but struggle with how to begin. What advice would you give to those looking to incorporate autoethnography into their research?

Quynh Anh: I think the first thing to understand is that autoethnography is rooted in qualitative research, so it’s important to get a strong grounding in qualitative methodologies before jumping into any specific approach. My advice would be to start by learning how to conduct a conventional qualitative study. Develop the basic skills first, such as how to design interviews, how to analyse data thematically, narratively, or through content analysis. These are foundational techniques, and they’re essential even when you’re writing about yourself.

The second piece of advice is to read widely, books, articles, or anything that can guide you through the process of generating and analysing your own data. In autoethnography and poetic enquiry, you, the researcher(s), are the data source, which could be overwhelming. You know so much about your own life that one memory or detail often leads to another, and before long, you’re swimming in too much material. That’s why it’s crucial to engage with theory. You need a strong conceptual framework to help you interpret the data, whether it’s from the past or generated as part of the research.

And third, think carefully about what exactly you want to write about. Because autoethnography is about the researcher, it’s easy to go off on tangents.

However, a good autoethnographic study should focus on a specific aspect of life or experience that connects clearly to your research questions. Otherwise, it risks becoming just a personal story rather than a scholarly contribution.

Minh: That’s really helpful. Regarding that last point, would you say that identifying a clear research question is essential before starting?

Quynh Anh: Yes, exactly! You need to define the scope of your project from the beginning. What is the research trying to do? What questions are you trying to answer? Once you have that clarity, it becomes much easier to make choices about what to include and how to frame your writing.

Types of autoethnography

Minh: Autoethnography has evolved into multiple forms, for example, collaborative, evocative, analytic, poetic, critical and so on. How do you decide which form of autoethnography best suits a particular research project, and what advice would you give to researchers navigating these methodological choices?

Quynh Anh: That’s a really important question. I think, like in all qualitative research, it begins with your aims and research questions. You have to ask: What do I want to explore in this particular study? Once you’re clear on that, the methodology follows. For instance, if I’m exploring something deeply personal that others may also relate to, and I have access to people who are willing to reflect and write with me, then collaborative autoethnography could be a good fit. But if the aim is to evoke strong emotional responses in the reader, say empathy or resonance, then evocative autoethnography might be more suitable. Personally, I’ve done more critical and analytical autoethnography, partly because the data I work with hasn’t been especially emotional in nature. My goal has often been to understand experiences more deeply through theory, not just to express them.

Most of my autoethnographic work focuses on mobility, migration, international student experiences, and transnational motherhood. These are areas I’ve had lived experience in, and they also connect with my research in international student mobility. That overlap makes it easier to write from both personal and scholarly perspectives. For example, in a recent publication entitled “Through guilt and resilience, we author ourselves: A collaborative autoethnography of Vietnamese PhD student mothers”,I wrote collaboratively with other international student mothers because there was an instant connection. We understood each other’s stories, but we also collaborated to frame them theoretically.

Minh: What about poetic autoethnography? What’s your secret for turning stories into such beautiful poems like in your recent publication in the Journal of Poetry Therapy?

Quynh Anh: (Laughs) I’m not sure there’s a secret, but I can share my experience. I wouldn’t call myself a poet at all. English isn’t my first language, so writing poetry in English has been a real challenge. What I usually do is write everything out in prose first, like a regular autoethnographic piece. Then I look at the text and identify which parts could be reworked into poems. I play with metaphors, rearrange phrases, and try to create rhythm or rhyme. It’s time-consuming, and I’m still learning, but it really forces me to engage deeply with the data because every word matters.

Minh: That’s impressive. Did you take a poetry course?

Quynh Anh: No, I didn’t. I just read a lot and tried to teach myself. But I do think some training, formal or informal, would be helpful, especially for people new to poetry. It gives you more confidence and techniques to work with. Rather than general books on poetry, I’d suggest looking into poetic enquiry specifically. It’s not always about writing your own poems. You can also use techniques like found poetry, where you work with interview transcripts or diary entries and reshape them into poems. It’s still a rigorous process that requires analysis, reflection, and theoretical framing.

Key Texts, Figures, and Theoretical Foundations

Minh: Which foundational texts or scholars have influenced your approach to autoethnography and poetic enquiry? If someone is new to these methodologies, what key readings would you recommend?

Quynh Anh: For readings, I’d recommend works by scholars like Carolyn Ellis, Tony Adams, and Art Bochner on autoethnography. For poetic enquiry, I recommend looking at the works of Sandra L. Faulkner because she writes beautifully and offers practical guidance. These texts are a great starting point for anyone wanting to try these creative but scholarly approaches. I’d also recommend the work of Heewon Chang, especially her book on collaborative autoethnography. It’s particularly interesting because she brings a different cultural lens: She’s of Korean background, though she was trained in the West. What I find valuable is how her perspective adds nuance to a methodology that’s largely been shaped by Western scholars. Collaborative autoethnography, in particular, is deeply rooted in values like community and shared meaning-making. Hence, having someone from a non-Western background writing about this methodology brings in different insights, especially about how collaboration and relationality work in other cultural contexts.

More broadly, I would encourage researchers to seek out work by scholars from the Global South, not just studies about Global South contexts, but work authored by researchers with those lived experiences. Their voices offer important contributions to how we understand and apply these methodologies in more diverse and inclusive ways.

Practical Applications and Justifying Autoethnography

Minh: How do you see autoethnography evolving as a method? Do you think there’s increasing acceptance of poetic autoethnography in academia, or does it still face resistance?

Quynh Anh: I think it still faces quite a bit of resistance. Different research paradigms shape how people understand knowledge, and not everyone is comfortable with approaches that are personal or subjective. Even experienced scholars, especially those more used to traditional paradigms, sometimes find autoethnography less academic because it involves writing about yourself, rather than writing about others or the world around you.

That said, things are changing. Autoethnography, including poetic autoethnography, is gaining momentum. More universities are accepting these approaches in PhD dissertations, and more journals are open to publishing this kind of work, especially those that state clearly in their aims and scope that they welcome creative or arts-based methodologies. Thus, while resistance still exists, the field is growing. We’re seeing more openness across different contexts, not just in the US or Canada, where some of the big names are based, but also in other parts of the world. As more people experiment with these forms and publish their work, the methods themselves continue to evolve, which is exciting to see.

Minh: As you know, one challenge for early-career researchers is justifying autoethnography as legitimate research, particularly in traditionally positivist fields. How do you respond to critiques that autoethnography is too subjective or too personal to be rigorous academic work?

Quynh Anh: That’s a concern I hear often, and I think it comes down to understanding what makes any research academic. The key difference between autoethnography and autobiography or personal reflection is the engagement with theory and literature.

Autoethnography isn’t just about telling your story; it’s about analysing your experience in relation to broader social, cultural, or political contexts. That requires a solid theoretical foundation.

That requires a solid theoretical foundation. Every part of the analysis must be backed by scholarship; it’s not just storytelling. It’s analytical work, grounded in academic frameworks. To defend autoethnography as a legitimate research method, you have to show clearly how your project is situated in the literature. What theories are you drawing on? How does your work contribute to ongoing conversations in the field? It’s no different from any other form of qualitative research in that sense. You need a clear methodology, a defined process for data collection and analysis, and a strong rationale for your approach.

Also, being transparent about how the data was generated is important. Was it drawn from memory, journals, interviews, audio recordings? What was the timeframe? These details matter. You have to show that you’re not just writing about yourself, but writing from a specific perspective, using theoretical tools to interpret lived experience in a way that adds to scholarly understanding.

To sum up, autoethnography is personal, but it’s also analytical, reflective, and theoretical. When done rigorously, autoethnography absolutely holds its place as legitimate academic research.

Minh: Related to the previous question, if a researcher would like to adopt poetic enquiry, what strategies would you recommend to ensure that their work is both engaging and academically rigorous?

Quynh Anh: I’d like to share a piece of advice not from me but from my PhD supervisors. When I first shared my poems with them, one of their comments really stayed with me. They said they could feel that the poems were written from the heart. That’s the advice I’d pass on to anyone wanting to engage in poetic enquiry: If you’re crafting the poems yourself, not doing found poetry, write from the heart. It’s not just about describing your experience. It’s about writing honestly, candidly, and emotionally. Let the feelings come through. That’s what makes the poem resonate, not just with readers, but with yourself, too.

Minh: That’s beautiful advice. However, emotional resonance is just one part. How can researchers also demonstrate that their poems are academically rigorous?

Quynh Anh: That’s a really important question. I think it depends on how the poem is positioned within the research. If the poem is used as a way of presenting data, then it needs to be situated within your methodology. The data could come from interviews, diaries, reflective journals, or even visual materials like photos or images. The poem becomes a form of data representation, a way of re-describing and interpreting what the data means, often through a more emotional or embodied lens.

In that sense, the poem isn’t just decorative or expressive. It’s a research poem. It represents analytical engagement with the data, and it should be accompanied by interpretation and reflection, just like any other research text. What does the poem say? What themes does it convey? How does it connect with the literature? Would others interpret the experience in the same way? Hence, the key is clarity of purpose: The poem must serve the research. It should be grounded in the aims and questions of the study. It’s not just a poem for poetry’s sake; it’s a poem as part of the academic process.

Minh: That’s quite similar to narrative enquiry, right? In narrative research, the story is already the product of analysis, but you still go on to do another layer of analysis, like identifying themes.

Quynh Anh: Exactly, yes! It’s the same kind of layering: The poem is crafted from data, but then it also invites another round of analysis, both by the researcher and by the reader.

Minh: What strategies have you found helpful when submitting autoethnographic work to academic journals? Have you faced pushback from reviewers, and if so, how did you navigate that?

Quynh Anh: Yes, I have a few suggestions based on my experience. First, I always recommend submitting to journals that explicitly state they welcome qualitative or arts-based methodologies, especially autoethnography or poetic enquiry. That’s really important because you want to find a home where the editors and reviewers are already familiar with these approaches.

The good news is that there are more and more journals embracing these kinds of methods, so the choices aren’t as limited as they once were. You can often identify suitable journals just by looking at the references in papers you admire and seeing where those authors are publishing. Some examples include The Qualitative Report, Qualitative Inquiry, Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, Higher Education Research & Development, Teaching and Teacher Education. Even System, a reputable applied linguistics journal, is open to self-study and narrative forms. In general, journals that support qualitative research tend to be more open to autoethnographic submissions. As for poetic enquiry, it’s a bit more niche, but journals like Qualitative Inquiry are very flexible in terms of form and style. Some journals also welcome shorter submissions like reflective essays, discussion papers, or creative commentaries, which can be great outlets for poetry-based work. These pieces might be around 4,000 words, rather than the typical 6,000–8,000 words.

Minh: That’s very helpful. Have you personally encountered any reviewer resistance?

Quynh Anh: Yes, I have. One time, a reviewer raised questions about ethics approval, specifically, about including other people in my writing. Even though I was writing from my own perspective, I don’t exist in a vacuum, and my experiences are relational, so that sometimes means involving others in the narrative. Luckily, I had already secured ethics approval for that project, and I had received informed consent from the people I was writing about, in this case, friends whose stories were part of the piece. Hence, I was able to respond clearly and confidently to the reviewer. That’s why I’d advise other researchers to think about ethics carefully. Different institutions have different requirements, and the expectations can be a bit grey when it comes to creative or personal methodologies. Hence, it’s important to check your institution’s policies and be mindful of how and when others appear in your writing.

I should add that I’ve generally had a smoother experience because I always choose appropriate outlets. When editors receive submissions in autoethnography or poetic enquiry, they usually know to send them to reviewers familiar with those methods. Nevertheless, not everyone will be so lucky. Thus, my advice would be: Trust what you are writing and have extensive engagement with the literature. Be transparent with yourself first, and then with your reviewers. And be prepared: Have citations and scholarly backing ready in your rebuttal letter if you’re challenged. If your choices are thoughtful and grounded in literature, you’ll be in a strong position to respond with clarity and confidence.

Reflections and Closing

Minh: Reflecting on your journey with autoethnography, what has been the most rewarding or transformative aspect of using this method in your own research? What keeps you committed to it?

Quynh Anh: That’s a big question but such an important one. For me, one of the most transformative aspects has been how these methodologies have made me more perceptive. They’ve trained me to notice the details, not just in research, but in life. Especially with poetic enquiry, where every word, every image, every metaphor matters, I’ve become much more attentive to nuance and subtlety.

It’s also made me more empathetic. When you read autoethnographic work, especially evocative pieces about trauma or deeply personal experiences, it’s like watching a powerful film. Even if you don’t share the same experience, you feel something. You understand more about the emotional lives of others. That, to me, is deeply humanising. These methods have helped me grow not just as a researcher, but as a person. And it’s not just about me. I often encourage my students to reflect on their own experiences through an autoethnographic lens. I don’t expect all of them to adopt these methods, but I want them to know these methods exist. I want them to realise that writing academically doesn’t always have to mean writing about others.

You can write about yourself, and you can do so rigorously, critically, and meaningfully.

That’s part of why I remain committed to these methodologies. In a way, it’s also an EDI (equity, diversity, and inclusion) agenda. Encouraging a broader range of research methods helps make academia more inclusive. It shows that research isn’t just about following rigid procedures, observing others, conducting interviews, and reporting objectively. It can also be about resonance, reflection, and writing from lived experience. That’s why I continue to embrace autoethnography and poetic enquiry. They’ve changed how I see the world, and I believe they have the power to change how others see themselves and their place in research, too.

Minh: Before we wrap up, is there any final advice you would like to give to postgraduate students, early-career researchers, and education practitioners who are considering using autoethnography and poetic enquiry in their work?

Quynh Anh: Yes. My main advice is simple: Just try it! Sit down and write about your experiences. Start by thinking inwardly, reflectively. I’m not an expert in Buddhism or mindfulness, but I do think there’s something similar in the kind of deep self-reflection these methods ask of us. You don’t need to get it right straight away. Just start.

Think critically about your experiences. Ask yourself: Why did I experience that? How did I respond to it? What challenges did I face? Writing autoethnographically isn’t like keeping a diary; it’s not just describing what happened. It requires you to reflect through a theoretical lens, to connect your personal experience with broader scholarship.

It might feel hard at first to write about yourself in a way that’s analytical and not just narrative. However, once you begin, and once you bring theory into your writing, you’ll see that it’s not so different from writing about others. The logic is the same. The research skills are the same. That said, it also requires a bit more. Because the data comes from you, there’s a lot of it because you know so much about yourself. Thus, you have to be selective: You have to make choices about what to include and what to leave out. That can be difficult, but it’s also part of the craft.

So yes, my advice is: Give it a try. If it works for you, great. If not, that’s okay, too. You can always engage with and learn from others’ works. Sometimes, when you try, you’ll discover something meaningful and maybe even enjoy the process.

Minh: So the most important thing is to take that first bold step to venture into it?

Quynh Anh: Exactly. Just take the first step. Then the second will come more easily. I think that’s true in research, and in life more broadly.

Minh: Thank you so much. This has been such a thought-provoking and enjoyable conversation. I’ve come away with a wealth of insights, and I know our readers will too.

Quynh Anh: Thank you for having me.

Note on contributors

Featured expert

Dr Ngoc Quynh Anh Phan is a Lecturer in Higher Education at the Centre for the Study of Higher Education. Dr Phan is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Her research centres on student mobility, migration, international students’ lived experience, space and place, (international) higher education, teacher education, TESOL and other social sciences areas (including gender roles, diasporic experiences, media and culture, and Vietnamese studies). Dr Phan has published extensively in top-tier journals of the fields that are related to her research interests, including Journal of Gender Studies; Globalisation, Societies, and Education; Studies in Continuing Education; Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies; Journal of International Students; Policy Futures in Education; The Education Forum; Diaspora Studies, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, London Review of Education, among many others. She has engaged with multiple (post-)qualitative methodologies, such as writing as a method of enquiry, poetic enquiry, and critical (collaborative) autoethnography. She also has poems published in Qualitative Inquiry and Journal of Poetry Therapy.

Interviewer and editor

Dr Xuan Minh Ngo is an Associate Lecturer in International Education and TESOL at the University of St Andrews, UK. His research interests lie in the intersection of language assessment, language policy, teacher education, and educational technology. His works have been published in System, Language Teaching Research, English Today, Asian Englishes, The Qualitative Report, Asian EFL Journal, Journal of World Languages, and recent Routledge, Springer, and Cambridge edited collections. Minh also serves on the Editorial Board of the Journal of AsiaTEFL.

Views: 51