Abstract

People living with chronic illness experience impairment in various ways, not the least of which is how they are sometimes marginalised by the people with whom they interact. Over the last few decades, as social science research has moved away from the biomedical model, research methodologies have been developed to allow the voices of people with illness or disabilities to be heard and not only to be represented by others. However, these methodologies may not go as far in redressing power imbalances as was hoped, and participants’ voices are often still mediated and subjugated to the researcher’s requirements. As a person who has lived with a chronic condition all my life, I am concerned about how I am heard and by whom, as this has often affected my self-perception and sometimes even my safety. I am also concerned about doing violence to those about whom I speak and disempowering them further. My doctoral research concerned the problematic of writing about my own experience of a chronic illness. I chose a methodology, autoethnography, that allowed me to write solely about my own experience. In so doing, I was able to consider the complexity of my own academic and narrative voices, individually and in combination. In this paper I explore the methodological and epistemological concerns around my decision to use autoethnography, as well as the sometimes surprising issues I navigated when doing so. One of these issues was the juxtapositioning of different types of texts I had written. In isolation, some of the texts show a clear influence of the very discourses to which I was trying to provide counter-narratives. When read together with other texts, they reveal a complex web of paradoxes, tensions, and silences, which allowed me to generate new narratives and to question assumptions – my own and other people’s.

Highlights

  • The insider’s view of their own experience of chronic illness is gaining prominence in research as a type of counter-narrative (Nelson 2001) to the formerly predominant medicalised discourse that constructs people as the sum of their symptoms (McDougall 2006; Shildrick 2002)

  • I went onto peritoneal dialysis at 21, after years of declining health

  • I was relieved and delighted, because I had waited so long to be put on dialysis and had become frail by the time I got my catheter

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The insider’s view of their own experience of chronic illness is gaining prominence in research as a type of counter-narrative (Nelson 2001) to the formerly predominant medicalised discourse that constructs people as the sum of their symptoms (McDougall 2006; Shildrick 2002). Evocative autoethnographers (Ellis and Bochner 2000; Ellis, Adams and Bochner 2011; Goodall 2008; Harrison 2009; Poulos 2006; Sparkes 1996) work with autoethnography’s potential for helping people – including researchers – to understand their experiences better They combine evocative writing styles with personal and academic styles for aesthetic and emotional effect. Writing evocatively can allow one to create a richer narrative that better shows the complexity, ambiguity, and nuances of lived experience This has proven especially productive for research in education and the experience of medical conditions; where many people’s stories may have a ghostly existence outside of the dominant discourses, unspoken and unheard.

Making peace with the unspeakable
Finding my voice and losing my story
Learning to say the word
Telling an old and new story
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call