1. A complete-member researcher is defined as a complete member of the society being researched who has a stake in the beliefs, values and actions of other setting members. Being a member of the research group means that the autoethnographic interrogation of self and other may transform the researcher’s own beliefs, actions and sense of self. The complete-member researcher must therefore be analytically reflexive in interrogating the self and writing up his/ her findings (Anderson 2006). The idea of a complete-member researcher is not necessarily an approach I agree with, as evidenced by the discussion of being “in between” in this chapter.


Abu-Lughod, L. (2006). Writing against culture. In E. Lewin (Ed.), Feminist anthropology: A reader (pp. 466-479). Malden/Oxford/Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.

Agarwal, B. (1995). A field ofone’s own: Gender and land rights in South Asia (Vol. 58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ahmed, L. (1992). Women and gender in Islam. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Al-Ali, N. (2000). Secularism,gender and the state in the Middle East: The Egyptian women’s movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Allen, K. R., & Piercy, F. P. (2005). Feminist autoethnography. Research Methods in Family Therapy, 2, 155-169.

Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373-395.

Beauvoir, S. de. (1953). The second sex. London: Jonathan Cape.

Bochner, A. P. (2000). Criteria against ourselves. Qualitative Inquiry, 6(2), 266-272.

Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 519-531.

Butler, J. (2002). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1994). Personal experience methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 413-427). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Coffey, A. (1999). The ethnographic self: Fieldwork and the representation of identity. London: Sage.

Crenshaw, K. (1997). Intersectionality and identity politics: Learning from violence against women of color. In Reconstructing political theory: Feminist perspectives (pp. 178-193). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Doucet, A., & Mauthner, N. S. (2008). Qualitative interviews and feminist research. In J. Brannen, P. A, & L. B (Eds.), The handbook of social research. London: Sage.

Duncan, M. (2004). Autoethnography: Critical appreciation of an emerging art. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(4), 28-39.

Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexiv- ity. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733-768). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I. Walnut Creek: AltaMira.

Flax, J. (1987). Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. Signs, 12, 621-643.

Friedman, M., Metelerkamp, J., & Posel, R. (1987). What is feminism? And what kind of feminist am I?. Agenda, 1(1), 3-24.

Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and method (G. Barden & J. Cumming, Trans.). New York: Seabury Press.

Hamdan, A. (2005). Women and education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges and achievements. International Education Journal, 6(1), 42-64.

Hamdan, A. K. (2009). Reflexivity of discomfort in insider-outsider educational research. McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l’education de McGill, 44(3), 377-404.

Holt, N. L. (2003). Representation, legitimation, and autoethnography: An autoethnographic writing story. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(1), 18-28.

Hufford, D. (1995). The scholarly voice and the personal voice: Reflexivity in belief studies. Western Folklore, 54, 57-76.

Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274-290.

Mauthner, N., & Doucet, A. (1998). Reflections on a voice-centred relational method. In Feminist dilemmas in qualitative research (pp. 119-146). London: Sage.

Mauthner, N. S., & Doucet, A. (2003). Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflex- ivity in qualitative data analysis. Sociology, 37(3), 413-431.

McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30(3), 1771-1800.

Mernissi, F. (1991). Women and Islam: A historical and theological enquiry. Oxford: Blackwell.

Mohanty, C. T. (1988). Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist Review, 30, 61-88.

Mohanty, C. T. (2003). “Under Western eyes” revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles. Signs, 28(2), 499-535.

Mojab, S. (2001). Theorizing the politics of Islamic feminism. Feminist Review, 69, 124-146.

Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms? In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30-61). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Reed-Danahay, D. (1997). Auto/ethnography. New York: Berg.

Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516-529). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Richardson, L. (2000a). New writing practices in qualitative research. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 5-20.

Richardson, L. (2000b). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 499-551). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sparkes, A. C. (2000). Autoethnography and narratives of self: Reflections on criteria in action. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 21-43.

Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1993). Breaking out again: Feminist ontology and epistemology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Treacher, A. (2003). Reading the other women, feminism, and Islam. Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 4(1), 59-71.

Wall, S. (2006). An autoethnography on learning about autoethnography.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2), 146-160.

Wall, S. (2008). Easier said than done: Writing an autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(1), 38-53.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125-151.

Yamani, M. (1996). Some observations on women in Saudi Arabia. In M. Yamani (Ed.), Feminism and Islam: Legal and literary perspectives (pp. 263-282). New York: New York University Press.

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >