METHOD
Duoethnography is a relatively new research genre created by Rick Sawyer and Joe Norris in part to avoid the hegemonic style of meta-narrative found in autoethnography. Its approach is to study how two or more individuals give similar and different meanings to a common phenomenon as it was experienced throughout their lives. Like Pinar's (1975) concept of currere, which conceptualizes a person's history as an informal curriculum or composite of learning
experiences, duoethnography examines how the life histories of different individuals influence their actions and the meanings that they give them. As
conceptualized by Norris, "Duoethnography not only reports the participants' stories but also interrogates them in a collegial conversation". The conversation
partners are alternatively both the researcher and the researched. As each partner shares stories and experiences the other partner recalls other past events
that they may not have remembered on their own.
The Questions
The main question to be explored, as originally conceived was, "What is the role of early male identity construction in negotiating one's place in a
predominantly feminine work setting? In this case, the elementary school. However, Rick was also curious as to the nature of the impact of the work
environment on continuing construction or reconstruction. Therefore, a second question was, "What is the nature of the influence of a predominantly female professional school culture on male identity construction?"
Selecting a Partner
Given the newness and unfamiliarity of this method of inquiry, we have chosen to describe the methods we used by showing where we deliberately aligned
our project with the basic tenets of duoethnography, as laid out by Norris and Sawyer, and where and why we chose to depart from most of the projects that preceded ours.
Selecting a conversation partner for this project presented some difficulty. During Rick's four years in Georgia he had not yet met a male elementary teacher
and the few he had known during his own elementary teaching career were no longer available. The potential intimacy of the topics also requires that
conversation partners establish some level of trust and safety. As a results, Rick had put aside the possibility of a duoethnography until a serendipitous
conversation with his wife, who teaches educational policy at another university. During that conversation about a class she had just finished, she suggested
Raine, one of the students in the class who she saw as being articulate, open, and insightful, as a possible duoethnographic partner. This presented what
seemed to be an optimal situation. We could enter the project with the blank slates, lack of preconceived notions and curiosity of a new relationship but
could enter the relationship with some level of mutual respect and trust that came with being brought together by a trusted intermediary.
Our initial conversation was not directly related to the project and, therefore, not transcribed or considered in the research. We used that time to clarify the
purpose of the project and duoethnographic process, and to explore how compatible we might be, the level of shared and contrasting experiences, and our
general ideas about teaching, students, and schooling.
Difference Within Similarity
One tenet of duoethnography is that the conversation partners bring differing experiences, meanings and points of view to shared phenomenon. In this
project, Raine and Rick shared the experience of being men in elementary education (see Rick's Story, see Raine's Story). As such, they are both part of a
small minority group within the predominantly female profession. Both are white and raised in communities that were not very racially or ethnically diverse.
They taught similar grade levels, had a variety of international experiences, and do not differ too much in age. However, they brought differences to the
dialogue that appeared to be especially relevant and crucial in relation to the topic.
Rick grew up in a mostly working class urban/suburban area of Chicago while Raine grew up in a largely agricultural area of Alberta, Canada. So in several
important ways, the surrounding culture that influenced each young boy was very different. Most significantly given the nature of this exploration is the fact
that Rick is straight and Raine is gay. None of those factors, however, resulted in the difference in perspective that we anticipated. As a result, we decided
to take the methodology in a new direction.
Towards a Trio-Ethnography
A second tenet of duoethnography is that the methodology must remain open to avoid becoming prescriptive. Sawyer and Norris have reassured future duoethnographers that, while they initiated this methodology, they lay no clai of proprietorship and that each group of researchers can adapt the method to
their unique circumstances. After the first couple hours of conversation we both realized that such adaptation might be necessary.
Very early in the process we discovered that despite the differences in our early backgrounds the men we had become were very similar and we had become distracted by the similarities instead of interrogating the differences. Moreover, because we had both experienced a good deal of success as teachers we
had begun spending much conversation time building an increasingly positive construction of men who go into elementary teaching, especially ourselves.
Reading the self-congratulatory tone of the early transcripts made us skeptical of our ability to honestly investigate our own development and ran the risk of
what Norris and Sawyer have warned against -- the possibility that the writers end up creating a "hero or victim saga". When this happens the storytellers
tend to be, or at least appear to be, positivistic and unlikely to undergo the transformation of perspective that underpins duoethnography. As the project
developed, Rick also had an experience that threw an element of necessary disequilibrium into the process.
In talking to women who were students in his graduate classes -- all practicing teachers -- about the research, to a person they said they had never had a
positive impression of the few men teachers with whom they worked. While duoethnography is not about generalizing findings to a larger population or
comparing oneself to some control group, since there are so few men in teaching and since the experiences shared by Rick and Raine seemed to differ so
radically from the men described by Rick's students, they felt that this issue had to somehow enter into the dialogue. The point was not to look into the
backgrounds of those other men but rather, to use the other teachers' perceptions of men in elementary teaching to disrupt the conversation they were
having and, by doing so, more critically examine their own reflections and challenge their notions of their own effectiveness. It was at this point that we
decided to add Rebecca to our conversation.
Rebecca's Contribution
Rebecca -- a straight, married, white woman -- is an elementary school science specialist and one of Rick's doctoral students (Rebecca's Story). While her
work in an elementary school is the most obvious point of similarity within our inquiry in previous unrelated conversations she had mentioned that she
perceived herself as being different from most of her female colleagues. She saw her assertiveness, strong will, and sense of professionalism as not your
typical "teacher-y" characteristics. She had also pointed out that she seldom took part in teacher lounge griping and gossip or petty relational tensions. At
the risk of stereotyping, the behaviors or tendencies that Rebecca believes she avoids would more often be attributed to women while the character traits
she sees as strengths are typically considered "masculine" ones. So while we originally conceived Rebecca's role as one of challenging and deepening
Raine and Rick's inquiry into male identity construction, we could just as easily shifted to a trio-ethnography -- or multiple, intersecting duoethnographies --
that looks at a sense of difference among elementary teachers.
Rebecca also brought important differences to the conversation. She brought a women's insight into the outward manifestations of masculine identity and
behavior in the world of the elementary school. Unlike either Rick or Raine, who now live in Atlanta, she was born and raised in the South. She also followed
a more traditional path toward teaching in that, again unlike either Raine or Rick, she knew from an early age that she wanted to be a teacher.
The Role of a Third Partner
We viewed the addition of a third person as being roughly analogous to comparing how an external reader interprets your interview data to your own. More specifically, we see the third person as bringing four additional dimensions to the project: playing a disruptive role, playing a reconstructive role, playing an interpersonal role and adding an aesthetic sense of completeness.
The disruptive role
The third person, at least in a case like ours, can provide a corrective point of view and challenge the current direction and unquestioned assumptions.
Raine and Rick had quickly created what might be called a master narrative for their investigation and it seemed to be limiting some critical probing and
insight. The third person provided a necessary antithesis to our thesis. This might not be necessary in other investigations that are originally conceived as duoethnographies. The need for a third would depend on the partners, the topic, and what the researchers want from the project. Therefore, at this point we
are not ready to recommend that trio-ethnography be a starting point. Instead, we see it as a methodological accommodation when it seems necessary or
helpful much as a researcher might add a new interview source to a case study based on the recommendation of other participants.
The reconstructive role
The third person did more than just help Raine and Rick disrupt or deconstruct their comfortable conversation. The infusion of new questions and lines of
thought played a re-constructive or revisioning role. The third person brought new energy and imagination to the line of inquiry. The way Rick described it
was as though a new, more topological perspective had been introduced. He chose that term, not for its actual mathematical definition but because
topological representations force us to see common objects in unusual ways and expose surfaces in ways we usually do not see them. In our investigation,
the introduction of perspectives that blurred lines between what we had assumed were based largely in gender and/or sexual orientation raised some new
questions about the nature and influence of gender in the elementary school setting. As a result, some specific questions began to emerge that might
become either part of this project or some future research. For example:
1. Is there really some sort of archetypal "third" gender characteristic of teachers? In other words, over the long slow evolution of the teaching enterprise
have there arisen characteristic traits that are shared by both sexes but that transcend or cross gender lines? We are not even sure what that implies yet
but we are going to continue the discussion.
2. While the conventional wisdom -- as well as the research on the profession (See the various "Discursus") -- generally depicts the elementary school
as a feminized work place our discussion has raised the possibility that in reality schools represent a distinctive, hybrid, institutional gender on the order of
what we suggested of individual teachers in the first question. This issue is discussed in other parts of our transcript.
3. Can gender construction really be determined through self-exploration? This process, for whatever other insights it has brought to our self-
understanding has also led us to wonder if we really have or can come to any understanding of our gender development through conversations like this. As
we heard each other's stories and identified so many different paths to similar results and so many similar paths to different outcomes we came to wonder
what we really learned. Were any of our insights really related to gender, or was it some other difference? These thoughts are elaborated in more
appropriate sections of our writing. (Personal Insights and A Final Conversation)
An interpersonal dimension
The third person in our group also changed the interpersonal dynamics in an interesting and valuable way. In our project, Rebecca was able to add a
constructive tension to the conversations. Having entered the process several hours into it, she read our transcripts and brought a number of interpretations
back into the conversation that we had passed over or did not question and asked questions that forced a rethinking or restatement of our responses. The
process went beyond a simple critical intellectual exercise, however, since it was done in context of redefining an existing relationship and developing a
new one. Rick knew both of his partners from earlier contacts but neither Raine nor Rebecca knew each other and entered this potentially intimate type of relationship based only on Rick's having vouched for the safety of the situation and the strong character of each person to the other.
Also, even though Rebecca and Rick knew each other from previous classroom experiences as teacher and student, the trio-ethnographic relationship
required entering the conversational setting more as equals with whatever implications there are for shifting of power or of the potential consequences for
challenging certain assumptions or gaining certain personal insight that normally would not come from a classroom setting. It is also possible, although the
transcripts cannot provide evidence of it at this point, that a third person of a different sex and sexual orientation than one or both of the other partners made
some questions or directions possible that might otherwise not been safe. It might be the case that Rebecca was able to approach the influence of sexual
orientation with Raine in a way that Rick would not have felt comfortable doing or that Raine was able to discuss the relevance of past male-female
relationships with Rick in a way that would not have been comfortable or appropriate to do if only Rick and Rebecca were in conversation.
An aesthetic dimension
The final additional dimension is hardly a factor in the methodological sense but could be meaningful in nurturing a comfortable and conducive environment
for the activity. Since each of us share a commitment to aesthetic education and the role of stories and artistic representation, the role of the number three
-- which is so important in folklore and religion -- might have provided a minor but relevant sense of balance and mythopoetic perfection or completion.
But Where Does it Stop?
So if a trio-ethnography seemed to be more powerful for our project why not a quadra-ethnography or maybe an octo-ethnography? Since ours is the only
trio-ethnography with which we are familiar and know of none that have incorporated even more participants, at this point in the methodology's evolution any argument for or against more than two participants is speculative. Still, we are comfortable arguing that more than three participants would most likely be
counter-productive and come close to violating even the few tenets duoethnography has laid out.
First, as the number of conversation partners expands, so does the risk of diluting the power of the results. Duoethnography is a time-intensive process
whether you are talking face-to-face or sharing thoughts via e-mail. There were few times that our group of three was able to meet face-to-face (our
preferred format) for more than an hour at a time. Assuming the same limitations, that hour would not have gone very far if we had added one or more new participants. Even if we had shifted more of the conversation to e-mail and other written responses the chances of reading and responding to each
contribution as thoughtfully as possible would diminish with each additional person. Human nature and our past experiences in collaborative endeavors also
suggest that as a group expands the chance of maintaining the same level of trust, respect, and responsibility toward each other (insightful and timely
responses, confidentiality, and so on), as well as a basic commitment to the project becomes more difficult to sustain.
A second risk we might anticipate is the possibility of being distracted too far afield from the original investigation. As the reader will see in our transcripts,
we often departed from the intended inquiry because, after all, we were three teachers talking about children and our profession. We were also becoming
friends, which makes it even harder to focus on the topic at hand. As a group becomes larger it would seem as though that risk would increase and, while
you might have interesting conversations, the chances of the focus, the probing investigation and soul-searching that is characteristic and necessary if the duoethnographic process is to be meaningful will be increasingly unlikely.
The previous two concerns lead logically to the third. We do not at this point believe that even if groups of four or more are able to stay focused and sustain
a conversation that they will be able to move beyond superficial insights into the topic. They might even provide more insights into the topic but the chances
of those insights becoming personally transformational would seem much less likely.
So as to not unilaterally limit the potential of this methodology, however, we will suggest one methodological or design possibility for using duoethnography
to explore a specific question with greater numbers or participants. It is a model we refer to as parallel or concurrent duoethnographies. This model can accommodate four or more conversation partners while potentially honoring the tenets of duoethnography and without taking on the dynamics of a small
group discussion. In this conception of the technique, two pairs (or triads) of participants at a time would pursue the duoethnographic process in relation to
a given question and then take the insights gained in the first process into a new pair or trio and begin again. The pairing could be deliberate or random
and the process could continue for only a set amount of pairings or could combine and recombine -- even to the extent of repeating with an earlier partner
-- until saturation or redundancy was reached. In other words, when no more transformation or growth seemed to be resulting. The parallel or concurrent
format would be even more time intensive than the original model but at least might avoid the risks of superficiality, distraction and dilution.
Jump-starting the Conversation
As in any conversation, there are natural lulls and points when the participants are unsure where to take the inquiry next or know that something should be
said or explored but just cannot get a handle on what is missing. There are also limits and biases built into our memories that sometimes need refreshing or correction. Therefore, other tactics are built into duoethnography designed to help stimulate a richer exploration.
First is the use of scrapbooks, photo albums, report cards, saved letters or other memorabilia as memory prompts. For Raine, whose father provided each
family member with a detailed photo album, the pictures sparked some vivid descriptions and recollections of formative times of his life. Rebecca also found
an interesting photo that led to some thought-provoking speculation regarding the mixed gender roles with which we are comfortable as children. [see
Points to Ponder] For Rick, who was farther removed from his elementary teaching experience than either Raine or Rebecca, looking back at the
messages left by his students in school yearbooks were helpful, as was another serendipitous e-mail from a former student after more than twenty years.
That e-mail led to Rick asking that student, as well as a few others with whom she was still in contact, to jot some of their own memories of their classroom experiences. He found this particularly helpful in trying to recall the gender-related messages he was sending and his own identity as perceived by others.
[see Reflective Essay 1]
The second tactic for sparking new areas of conversation was the use of research literature on gender construction in elementary school settings. That will
be discussed more thoroughly in the next section.
Considering a Silent Partner
After adding a third partner it might be said that we added the perspectives of one more "partner" that, while not the same in substance and form as the
original three, played a crucial role. We are referring to the research literature on the role of gender in elementary teaching. We are calling it a third party
because unlike most traditional research projects, we did not immerse ourselves in that literature before beginning the conversations. Instead, after we were
several hours into the project, we began reading the literature and as each new source was considered, it was inserted into the conversation as thought the
authors were adding his or her perspective when and where it was relevant. While the literature did not inform the original topic or initial questions, it did
shape subsequent questions and perspectives.
The addition of research literature also completed another part of the triadic, interactive rethinking of our duoethnographic approach. The conversations
obviously serve as the central focus of the inquiry. However, the conversations themselves would be just so much "naval-gazing" without careful pre- and
post-conversation reflection. It is during those periods that the previous conversation was analyzed and interpreted and the next step was determined
based on insights and new questions developed out of the reflective process. When we added the research literature into the process our analysis became
more insightful and the future conversations richer.
There was movement back and forth between the conversations and the reflection, the reflection and the literature and the literature and the conversations. Sometimes some recollection of something learned in our reading would enter directly into the conversation. Other times the influence of the literature would
work its way into the analysis or planning for future conversations indirectly through the reflective process. In addition to providing new questions and
directions, other people's research also provided terminology and a framework for analysis of ideas we ahd but had been unable to articulate up until that
time. At times, we simply responded directly to an issue raised in someone else's writing. The interactive and admittedly somewhat convoluted role of the
literature was a contributing factor to the way in which we decided to write our results. We will discuss that in the final section.
From Research to Writing
Two more tenets are important to duoethnography. One is that each individual voice be made explicit. Related to that is the importance of undergoing and demonstrating a change of perspective. To highlight individual voices, most of the text in duoethnography is written as a conversation or play script that
helps the reader distinguish who is saying what. This approach also encourages the reader to form their own synthesis out of the dialogic process of the
researchers.
The final tenet, that a change of perspective result from the methodology, suggests that if there is a measure of rigor for the duoethnographic process, at the
center of it will be transparency and explicitness. The reader wants to and should be able to witness the transformation of the researchers as it occurs, not
just be told of it in a section of conclusions. Ideally, the reader will be able to not only know that a transformation has taken place but might even be able to
pinpoint when, where, and how it happened. Maybe even better than the researchers themselves.
In the duoethnographies we had read up until our own those tenets had been addressed by the use of minimally edited conversation transcripts or extensive
pieces of dialogue woven together with narrative insights. We decided to take the need for transparency even farther by using a hypertext format that would
allow us to insert our meta-processes more directly into the reader's experience. We wanted to offer greater insight into the thinking that took place between
spoken and written communications and into the way additional experiences such as reading outside literature informed the conversation in a continuing
way.
Adding a Metacognitive Component
The path of our trio-ethnography was anything but linear in its progression. To do any justice to its twists and turns, the thinking it provided beyond the
conversations and the complexity (and confusion) of communication between three people of different sexes, sexual orientation, ages, and experiences
seemed to demand a presentation that was also anything but linear. So, instead of the format usually used in a paper presentation or journal manuscript,
we decided to use a web-based hypertext format which would allow the reader to move in and out of the main text -- the interview transcripts -- and follow
the same line of thinking as we did in conducting the research. In using this format we were able to build transparency and evidence of methodological rigor
into the process by presenting the actual paths of inquiry taken as they were taken. It also allowed us to provide much more information than the space in
most journals would provide, again, increasing the transparency of analysis and decision-making.
Description of Format and Content
The main or home document is the transcript of the interviews. Some minor editing was done on the transcript for the sake of readability and focus.
Examples of edits include getting rid of some distracting speech patterns inherent in verbal interactions and taking out passages where we clearly departed
far from the topic. While Rick typed and did the initial editing of the transcripts, Raine and Rebecca reviewed the original and revised transcripts in order to
suggest changes or request that edited portions be replaced. The editing process also included the initial placement of tentative links to other documents.
Those other links fit into four categories we labeled as Contextual Information, Intra-Conversational Extensions, Extra- Conversational Links and Intra-
transcript Connections.
Contextual information
The four types of documents included in this category provide some of the information that would typically be included in a traditional research report format
and that some readers will find helpful. They are not critical, however, to understanding the insights from the transcripts themselves. The Prologue provides
an introduction to and context of the study in general and a brief review of literature related to male identity in elementary teaching. The Methodology is
what you are now reading. Background stories are included to help the reader gain a more vivid and intimate sense of the participants. An Epilogue is also
included to provide each participant an opportunity to discuss the impact of the project on their own perspectives and to draw some insights and conclusions
for the trio as a whole.
Intra-conversational extensions
These are links to what might be considered researcher blogs that extend discussion of issues that were raised in the original conversations. The entries
take the form of brief reflective essays by members on things that were said during the conversations but that they thought about after reading the
transcript and written mini- or side conversations between participants in which specific questions are raised and answered or a topic from the main
conversation is pursued in a written dialogue.
Extra-conversational supplements
The content available in these documents link the reader to other scholarship related to male gender construction in elementary schools. One type of link is
to specific articles and quoted material (much as a footnote would do) that sheds light on or that informed some aspect of the main conversation. Another
provides what we are calling an "excurses" based on synthesis of other research or scholarly thought that speaks to a particular area of interest in the
conversation. A third link is to a reference or suggested reading list that readers might find helpful in their own research into our topic.
Intra-transcript connections
During the conversations the three participants often revisited previous topics or raised new issues that had some relation to previous topics. This fourth
type of link allows the reader to jump back and forth to other parts of the conversation that might enlarge the understanding of an individual participant's
perspective on a given issue.
In Closing
One of the most common criticisms of qualitative research in general, but especially of internally-focused, conversational styles of research is what appears
to be a lack of validity and methodological and interpretive rigor (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002; Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001). At the risk of slipping into a "recalcitrant empiricism" (Heap, 1995, p. 271), we agree with those who believe that even research such as this, which falls far from the quantitative realm,
who argue that the "qualitative ethic calls for researchers to substantiate their interpretations and findings with a public accounting of themselves and the
processes of their research" (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002, p. 35). We agree with Creswell and Miller (2000), however, in that ways in which qualitative researchers have proposed that we deal with issues of validity and interpretation can be more confusing than the research itself. To help focus our own
concern with have chosen to look at validity more in terms of the interpretation and use we made of our data than on the design, methodology or process of
data collection (Cresswell & Miller, 2000; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983).
Public Accountability
Some fellow duoethnographers will disagree with the need for so much attention to validity but we were sensitive to some early critique of duoethnography,
even from a number of fellow qualitative researchers, that kept asking, "So what?" and "Isn't this really just a long conversation?" We do not feel it is
necessary for anyone to justify their approach to or the meaning of their research, especially if it provides insight into their practice or helps their own
development as persons, scholars, and teachers. However, we do worry that without sustained and deliberate attention to the rigor, however defined,
techniques like duoethnography or any other autobiographically-based or self-study inquiries run the risk of becoming introverted rather than introspective
and of not respecting the traditions or methods of the research disciplines on which they draw: autobiography, history, ethnography, and so on. We agree
with Bullough and Pinnegar's (2001) caution regarding any self-study research.
In order to assert any authority a study must do so from the frame of frames of the borrowed methodology as well as
from the virtuosity of scholarship established in the piece of writing itself . . . . A claim to be studying oneself does not
bring with it an excuse from rigor (p. 15).
In addition to the more general concern with rigor, we feel even more strongly about the transparency of most qualitative research. Rick's own work in
synthesizing professional development school research has come to the same conclusion as Anfara and colleagues (2002) who expressed three major
concerns regarding the transparency of most qualitative research: (1) simply stating that "themes emerged" means that the reader is expected to take the
word of the researcher that a credible analysis was done -- that those themes actually "have some congruence or verisimilitude with the reality of the
phenomena"; (2) the terms, triangulation, member checks, and so on were used as "magical incantations" with little evidence as to how they were achieved;
and (3) rarely is the reader provided with the interview protocol (p. 29). We realize that often it is the limitations of the publication process that force the
researcher into omitting those key elements of the methodology. That is why we chose the more flexible and less limiting electronic format.
Moving Toward Transparency
To highlight the ways in which we have tried to address the issues of transparency and rigor, we have borrowed a framework created by Cresswell and
Miller (2000), who created a matrix of sorts in which methodological procedures were aligned with the three major paradigms of qualitative research --
postpositivist, constructivist, and critical-- and the three possible lenses or assumptions through which the research might be examined -- the researcher,
the participants and the people external to the study. Their matrix suggests nine possible validity procedures. Below we have listed each of the nine and
provided the way(s) we have attempted to address each.
Triangulation - The use of photographs, comments from former students and/or family members, and the transparent, interactive role of the research
literature.
Member checking - Reading and rereading of transcripts by each conversant, follow-up and clarification questions from each partner, opportunity for each
participant to add on to or change previous remarks in reflective essays.
Audit trail - Nearly every thought in the research process, as well as, where and why it occurred when it did, is available to the reader in the most
transparent format we have yet encountered.
Disconfirming evidence - The same processes as were described in "Triangulation" as well as the critical reflection (see Rick's Revisionist History essay)
provided disconfirming evidence in several places. That evidence is discussed openly in several places and is available to the reader for his/her own
judgment.
Prolonged engagement - The main conversations alone have extended to four hours and are not yet completed. The written responses, supplementary
interviews, reflective essays and other components have added many additional hours. We do not intend to complete the process until we have reached a
point of saturation or redundancy or, as Dewey (1934) suggest, when the inquiry has "run its course to fulfillment" (p. 36).
Thick/Rich description - We have tried to accomplish this by providing autobiographical sketches, numerous descriptions of classroom practices and personal characteristics, and the personal reflection essays that extend the reader's knowledge of the participants and the settings in which they have worked and
developed.
Researcher reflexivity - Given the intensely personal nature and internal focus of duoethnography this standard is especially important in establishing
validity of the method. As cited earlier, personal transformation through critical reflection is a sort of measure of the effectiveness of the inquiry. we believe
we have demonstrated this process through the interactive hypertext, through showing exactly where the research literature entered and affected our
thinking, through reflective essays and the other various links that are intended to show where our thinking changed and where new conclusions were
reached. The Epilogue focuses particularly on critical insights but all the preceding text is what gives those critical insights their validity since it is there that
readers can follow our thinking and make their own judgments as to whether those insights arose legitimately from the research process.
Collaboration - This should be apparent in the very nature of duoethnography. But, again, we have tried to include as much evidence as possible as to where perspectives were shared or challenged, how each participant responded, and where each contributed.
Peer debriefing - Here, too, this process should be evident in the various interacting supplementary texts. This has also taken place "behind the scenes" in
that there have been numerous virtual and face-to-face opportunities for the small community of duoethnographers to share their work on-line and in front of conference audiences and discussants. In fact, the reason we have been preoccupied with exploring a format that would indeed demonstrate all these
validation processes arose largely from comments received during a presentation at a recent qualitative research conference.
Given the nature of naturalistic forms of research with its extensive conversations, observations, immersion in culture and the internal worlds of others and one's self, complete transparency will probably never be possible. But we maintain that we should continually move towards that end in ways that do not disrupt the integrity and intentions of qualitative inquiry. What we have attempted here is an experiment in doing just that and we will be interested in hearing the responses of anyone who hears or reads this study.
experiences, duoethnography examines how the life histories of different individuals influence their actions and the meanings that they give them. As
conceptualized by Norris, "Duoethnography not only reports the participants' stories but also interrogates them in a collegial conversation". The conversation
partners are alternatively both the researcher and the researched. As each partner shares stories and experiences the other partner recalls other past events
that they may not have remembered on their own.
The Questions
The main question to be explored, as originally conceived was, "What is the role of early male identity construction in negotiating one's place in a
predominantly feminine work setting? In this case, the elementary school. However, Rick was also curious as to the nature of the impact of the work
environment on continuing construction or reconstruction. Therefore, a second question was, "What is the nature of the influence of a predominantly female professional school culture on male identity construction?"
Selecting a Partner
Given the newness and unfamiliarity of this method of inquiry, we have chosen to describe the methods we used by showing where we deliberately aligned
our project with the basic tenets of duoethnography, as laid out by Norris and Sawyer, and where and why we chose to depart from most of the projects that preceded ours.
Selecting a conversation partner for this project presented some difficulty. During Rick's four years in Georgia he had not yet met a male elementary teacher
and the few he had known during his own elementary teaching career were no longer available. The potential intimacy of the topics also requires that
conversation partners establish some level of trust and safety. As a results, Rick had put aside the possibility of a duoethnography until a serendipitous
conversation with his wife, who teaches educational policy at another university. During that conversation about a class she had just finished, she suggested
Raine, one of the students in the class who she saw as being articulate, open, and insightful, as a possible duoethnographic partner. This presented what
seemed to be an optimal situation. We could enter the project with the blank slates, lack of preconceived notions and curiosity of a new relationship but
could enter the relationship with some level of mutual respect and trust that came with being brought together by a trusted intermediary.
Our initial conversation was not directly related to the project and, therefore, not transcribed or considered in the research. We used that time to clarify the
purpose of the project and duoethnographic process, and to explore how compatible we might be, the level of shared and contrasting experiences, and our
general ideas about teaching, students, and schooling.
Difference Within Similarity
One tenet of duoethnography is that the conversation partners bring differing experiences, meanings and points of view to shared phenomenon. In this
project, Raine and Rick shared the experience of being men in elementary education (see Rick's Story, see Raine's Story). As such, they are both part of a
small minority group within the predominantly female profession. Both are white and raised in communities that were not very racially or ethnically diverse.
They taught similar grade levels, had a variety of international experiences, and do not differ too much in age. However, they brought differences to the
dialogue that appeared to be especially relevant and crucial in relation to the topic.
Rick grew up in a mostly working class urban/suburban area of Chicago while Raine grew up in a largely agricultural area of Alberta, Canada. So in several
important ways, the surrounding culture that influenced each young boy was very different. Most significantly given the nature of this exploration is the fact
that Rick is straight and Raine is gay. None of those factors, however, resulted in the difference in perspective that we anticipated. As a result, we decided
to take the methodology in a new direction.
Towards a Trio-Ethnography
A second tenet of duoethnography is that the methodology must remain open to avoid becoming prescriptive. Sawyer and Norris have reassured future duoethnographers that, while they initiated this methodology, they lay no clai of proprietorship and that each group of researchers can adapt the method to
their unique circumstances. After the first couple hours of conversation we both realized that such adaptation might be necessary.
Very early in the process we discovered that despite the differences in our early backgrounds the men we had become were very similar and we had become distracted by the similarities instead of interrogating the differences. Moreover, because we had both experienced a good deal of success as teachers we
had begun spending much conversation time building an increasingly positive construction of men who go into elementary teaching, especially ourselves.
Reading the self-congratulatory tone of the early transcripts made us skeptical of our ability to honestly investigate our own development and ran the risk of
what Norris and Sawyer have warned against -- the possibility that the writers end up creating a "hero or victim saga". When this happens the storytellers
tend to be, or at least appear to be, positivistic and unlikely to undergo the transformation of perspective that underpins duoethnography. As the project
developed, Rick also had an experience that threw an element of necessary disequilibrium into the process.
In talking to women who were students in his graduate classes -- all practicing teachers -- about the research, to a person they said they had never had a
positive impression of the few men teachers with whom they worked. While duoethnography is not about generalizing findings to a larger population or
comparing oneself to some control group, since there are so few men in teaching and since the experiences shared by Rick and Raine seemed to differ so
radically from the men described by Rick's students, they felt that this issue had to somehow enter into the dialogue. The point was not to look into the
backgrounds of those other men but rather, to use the other teachers' perceptions of men in elementary teaching to disrupt the conversation they were
having and, by doing so, more critically examine their own reflections and challenge their notions of their own effectiveness. It was at this point that we
decided to add Rebecca to our conversation.
Rebecca's Contribution
Rebecca -- a straight, married, white woman -- is an elementary school science specialist and one of Rick's doctoral students (Rebecca's Story). While her
work in an elementary school is the most obvious point of similarity within our inquiry in previous unrelated conversations she had mentioned that she
perceived herself as being different from most of her female colleagues. She saw her assertiveness, strong will, and sense of professionalism as not your
typical "teacher-y" characteristics. She had also pointed out that she seldom took part in teacher lounge griping and gossip or petty relational tensions. At
the risk of stereotyping, the behaviors or tendencies that Rebecca believes she avoids would more often be attributed to women while the character traits
she sees as strengths are typically considered "masculine" ones. So while we originally conceived Rebecca's role as one of challenging and deepening
Raine and Rick's inquiry into male identity construction, we could just as easily shifted to a trio-ethnography -- or multiple, intersecting duoethnographies --
that looks at a sense of difference among elementary teachers.
Rebecca also brought important differences to the conversation. She brought a women's insight into the outward manifestations of masculine identity and
behavior in the world of the elementary school. Unlike either Rick or Raine, who now live in Atlanta, she was born and raised in the South. She also followed
a more traditional path toward teaching in that, again unlike either Raine or Rick, she knew from an early age that she wanted to be a teacher.
The Role of a Third Partner
We viewed the addition of a third person as being roughly analogous to comparing how an external reader interprets your interview data to your own. More specifically, we see the third person as bringing four additional dimensions to the project: playing a disruptive role, playing a reconstructive role, playing an interpersonal role and adding an aesthetic sense of completeness.
The disruptive role
The third person, at least in a case like ours, can provide a corrective point of view and challenge the current direction and unquestioned assumptions.
Raine and Rick had quickly created what might be called a master narrative for their investigation and it seemed to be limiting some critical probing and
insight. The third person provided a necessary antithesis to our thesis. This might not be necessary in other investigations that are originally conceived as duoethnographies. The need for a third would depend on the partners, the topic, and what the researchers want from the project. Therefore, at this point we
are not ready to recommend that trio-ethnography be a starting point. Instead, we see it as a methodological accommodation when it seems necessary or
helpful much as a researcher might add a new interview source to a case study based on the recommendation of other participants.
The reconstructive role
The third person did more than just help Raine and Rick disrupt or deconstruct their comfortable conversation. The infusion of new questions and lines of
thought played a re-constructive or revisioning role. The third person brought new energy and imagination to the line of inquiry. The way Rick described it
was as though a new, more topological perspective had been introduced. He chose that term, not for its actual mathematical definition but because
topological representations force us to see common objects in unusual ways and expose surfaces in ways we usually do not see them. In our investigation,
the introduction of perspectives that blurred lines between what we had assumed were based largely in gender and/or sexual orientation raised some new
questions about the nature and influence of gender in the elementary school setting. As a result, some specific questions began to emerge that might
become either part of this project or some future research. For example:
1. Is there really some sort of archetypal "third" gender characteristic of teachers? In other words, over the long slow evolution of the teaching enterprise
have there arisen characteristic traits that are shared by both sexes but that transcend or cross gender lines? We are not even sure what that implies yet
but we are going to continue the discussion.
2. While the conventional wisdom -- as well as the research on the profession (See the various "Discursus") -- generally depicts the elementary school
as a feminized work place our discussion has raised the possibility that in reality schools represent a distinctive, hybrid, institutional gender on the order of
what we suggested of individual teachers in the first question. This issue is discussed in other parts of our transcript.
3. Can gender construction really be determined through self-exploration? This process, for whatever other insights it has brought to our self-
understanding has also led us to wonder if we really have or can come to any understanding of our gender development through conversations like this. As
we heard each other's stories and identified so many different paths to similar results and so many similar paths to different outcomes we came to wonder
what we really learned. Were any of our insights really related to gender, or was it some other difference? These thoughts are elaborated in more
appropriate sections of our writing. (Personal Insights and A Final Conversation)
An interpersonal dimension
The third person in our group also changed the interpersonal dynamics in an interesting and valuable way. In our project, Rebecca was able to add a
constructive tension to the conversations. Having entered the process several hours into it, she read our transcripts and brought a number of interpretations
back into the conversation that we had passed over or did not question and asked questions that forced a rethinking or restatement of our responses. The
process went beyond a simple critical intellectual exercise, however, since it was done in context of redefining an existing relationship and developing a
new one. Rick knew both of his partners from earlier contacts but neither Raine nor Rebecca knew each other and entered this potentially intimate type of relationship based only on Rick's having vouched for the safety of the situation and the strong character of each person to the other.
Also, even though Rebecca and Rick knew each other from previous classroom experiences as teacher and student, the trio-ethnographic relationship
required entering the conversational setting more as equals with whatever implications there are for shifting of power or of the potential consequences for
challenging certain assumptions or gaining certain personal insight that normally would not come from a classroom setting. It is also possible, although the
transcripts cannot provide evidence of it at this point, that a third person of a different sex and sexual orientation than one or both of the other partners made
some questions or directions possible that might otherwise not been safe. It might be the case that Rebecca was able to approach the influence of sexual
orientation with Raine in a way that Rick would not have felt comfortable doing or that Raine was able to discuss the relevance of past male-female
relationships with Rick in a way that would not have been comfortable or appropriate to do if only Rick and Rebecca were in conversation.
An aesthetic dimension
The final additional dimension is hardly a factor in the methodological sense but could be meaningful in nurturing a comfortable and conducive environment
for the activity. Since each of us share a commitment to aesthetic education and the role of stories and artistic representation, the role of the number three
-- which is so important in folklore and religion -- might have provided a minor but relevant sense of balance and mythopoetic perfection or completion.
But Where Does it Stop?
So if a trio-ethnography seemed to be more powerful for our project why not a quadra-ethnography or maybe an octo-ethnography? Since ours is the only
trio-ethnography with which we are familiar and know of none that have incorporated even more participants, at this point in the methodology's evolution any argument for or against more than two participants is speculative. Still, we are comfortable arguing that more than three participants would most likely be
counter-productive and come close to violating even the few tenets duoethnography has laid out.
First, as the number of conversation partners expands, so does the risk of diluting the power of the results. Duoethnography is a time-intensive process
whether you are talking face-to-face or sharing thoughts via e-mail. There were few times that our group of three was able to meet face-to-face (our
preferred format) for more than an hour at a time. Assuming the same limitations, that hour would not have gone very far if we had added one or more new participants. Even if we had shifted more of the conversation to e-mail and other written responses the chances of reading and responding to each
contribution as thoughtfully as possible would diminish with each additional person. Human nature and our past experiences in collaborative endeavors also
suggest that as a group expands the chance of maintaining the same level of trust, respect, and responsibility toward each other (insightful and timely
responses, confidentiality, and so on), as well as a basic commitment to the project becomes more difficult to sustain.
A second risk we might anticipate is the possibility of being distracted too far afield from the original investigation. As the reader will see in our transcripts,
we often departed from the intended inquiry because, after all, we were three teachers talking about children and our profession. We were also becoming
friends, which makes it even harder to focus on the topic at hand. As a group becomes larger it would seem as though that risk would increase and, while
you might have interesting conversations, the chances of the focus, the probing investigation and soul-searching that is characteristic and necessary if the duoethnographic process is to be meaningful will be increasingly unlikely.
The previous two concerns lead logically to the third. We do not at this point believe that even if groups of four or more are able to stay focused and sustain
a conversation that they will be able to move beyond superficial insights into the topic. They might even provide more insights into the topic but the chances
of those insights becoming personally transformational would seem much less likely.
So as to not unilaterally limit the potential of this methodology, however, we will suggest one methodological or design possibility for using duoethnography
to explore a specific question with greater numbers or participants. It is a model we refer to as parallel or concurrent duoethnographies. This model can accommodate four or more conversation partners while potentially honoring the tenets of duoethnography and without taking on the dynamics of a small
group discussion. In this conception of the technique, two pairs (or triads) of participants at a time would pursue the duoethnographic process in relation to
a given question and then take the insights gained in the first process into a new pair or trio and begin again. The pairing could be deliberate or random
and the process could continue for only a set amount of pairings or could combine and recombine -- even to the extent of repeating with an earlier partner
-- until saturation or redundancy was reached. In other words, when no more transformation or growth seemed to be resulting. The parallel or concurrent
format would be even more time intensive than the original model but at least might avoid the risks of superficiality, distraction and dilution.
Jump-starting the Conversation
As in any conversation, there are natural lulls and points when the participants are unsure where to take the inquiry next or know that something should be
said or explored but just cannot get a handle on what is missing. There are also limits and biases built into our memories that sometimes need refreshing or correction. Therefore, other tactics are built into duoethnography designed to help stimulate a richer exploration.
First is the use of scrapbooks, photo albums, report cards, saved letters or other memorabilia as memory prompts. For Raine, whose father provided each
family member with a detailed photo album, the pictures sparked some vivid descriptions and recollections of formative times of his life. Rebecca also found
an interesting photo that led to some thought-provoking speculation regarding the mixed gender roles with which we are comfortable as children. [see
Points to Ponder] For Rick, who was farther removed from his elementary teaching experience than either Raine or Rebecca, looking back at the
messages left by his students in school yearbooks were helpful, as was another serendipitous e-mail from a former student after more than twenty years.
That e-mail led to Rick asking that student, as well as a few others with whom she was still in contact, to jot some of their own memories of their classroom experiences. He found this particularly helpful in trying to recall the gender-related messages he was sending and his own identity as perceived by others.
[see Reflective Essay 1]
The second tactic for sparking new areas of conversation was the use of research literature on gender construction in elementary school settings. That will
be discussed more thoroughly in the next section.
Considering a Silent Partner
After adding a third partner it might be said that we added the perspectives of one more "partner" that, while not the same in substance and form as the
original three, played a crucial role. We are referring to the research literature on the role of gender in elementary teaching. We are calling it a third party
because unlike most traditional research projects, we did not immerse ourselves in that literature before beginning the conversations. Instead, after we were
several hours into the project, we began reading the literature and as each new source was considered, it was inserted into the conversation as thought the
authors were adding his or her perspective when and where it was relevant. While the literature did not inform the original topic or initial questions, it did
shape subsequent questions and perspectives.
The addition of research literature also completed another part of the triadic, interactive rethinking of our duoethnographic approach. The conversations
obviously serve as the central focus of the inquiry. However, the conversations themselves would be just so much "naval-gazing" without careful pre- and
post-conversation reflection. It is during those periods that the previous conversation was analyzed and interpreted and the next step was determined
based on insights and new questions developed out of the reflective process. When we added the research literature into the process our analysis became
more insightful and the future conversations richer.
There was movement back and forth between the conversations and the reflection, the reflection and the literature and the literature and the conversations. Sometimes some recollection of something learned in our reading would enter directly into the conversation. Other times the influence of the literature would
work its way into the analysis or planning for future conversations indirectly through the reflective process. In addition to providing new questions and
directions, other people's research also provided terminology and a framework for analysis of ideas we ahd but had been unable to articulate up until that
time. At times, we simply responded directly to an issue raised in someone else's writing. The interactive and admittedly somewhat convoluted role of the
literature was a contributing factor to the way in which we decided to write our results. We will discuss that in the final section.
From Research to Writing
Two more tenets are important to duoethnography. One is that each individual voice be made explicit. Related to that is the importance of undergoing and demonstrating a change of perspective. To highlight individual voices, most of the text in duoethnography is written as a conversation or play script that
helps the reader distinguish who is saying what. This approach also encourages the reader to form their own synthesis out of the dialogic process of the
researchers.
The final tenet, that a change of perspective result from the methodology, suggests that if there is a measure of rigor for the duoethnographic process, at the
center of it will be transparency and explicitness. The reader wants to and should be able to witness the transformation of the researchers as it occurs, not
just be told of it in a section of conclusions. Ideally, the reader will be able to not only know that a transformation has taken place but might even be able to
pinpoint when, where, and how it happened. Maybe even better than the researchers themselves.
In the duoethnographies we had read up until our own those tenets had been addressed by the use of minimally edited conversation transcripts or extensive
pieces of dialogue woven together with narrative insights. We decided to take the need for transparency even farther by using a hypertext format that would
allow us to insert our meta-processes more directly into the reader's experience. We wanted to offer greater insight into the thinking that took place between
spoken and written communications and into the way additional experiences such as reading outside literature informed the conversation in a continuing
way.
Adding a Metacognitive Component
The path of our trio-ethnography was anything but linear in its progression. To do any justice to its twists and turns, the thinking it provided beyond the
conversations and the complexity (and confusion) of communication between three people of different sexes, sexual orientation, ages, and experiences
seemed to demand a presentation that was also anything but linear. So, instead of the format usually used in a paper presentation or journal manuscript,
we decided to use a web-based hypertext format which would allow the reader to move in and out of the main text -- the interview transcripts -- and follow
the same line of thinking as we did in conducting the research. In using this format we were able to build transparency and evidence of methodological rigor
into the process by presenting the actual paths of inquiry taken as they were taken. It also allowed us to provide much more information than the space in
most journals would provide, again, increasing the transparency of analysis and decision-making.
Description of Format and Content
The main or home document is the transcript of the interviews. Some minor editing was done on the transcript for the sake of readability and focus.
Examples of edits include getting rid of some distracting speech patterns inherent in verbal interactions and taking out passages where we clearly departed
far from the topic. While Rick typed and did the initial editing of the transcripts, Raine and Rebecca reviewed the original and revised transcripts in order to
suggest changes or request that edited portions be replaced. The editing process also included the initial placement of tentative links to other documents.
Those other links fit into four categories we labeled as Contextual Information, Intra-Conversational Extensions, Extra- Conversational Links and Intra-
transcript Connections.
Contextual information
The four types of documents included in this category provide some of the information that would typically be included in a traditional research report format
and that some readers will find helpful. They are not critical, however, to understanding the insights from the transcripts themselves. The Prologue provides
an introduction to and context of the study in general and a brief review of literature related to male identity in elementary teaching. The Methodology is
what you are now reading. Background stories are included to help the reader gain a more vivid and intimate sense of the participants. An Epilogue is also
included to provide each participant an opportunity to discuss the impact of the project on their own perspectives and to draw some insights and conclusions
for the trio as a whole.
Intra-conversational extensions
These are links to what might be considered researcher blogs that extend discussion of issues that were raised in the original conversations. The entries
take the form of brief reflective essays by members on things that were said during the conversations but that they thought about after reading the
transcript and written mini- or side conversations between participants in which specific questions are raised and answered or a topic from the main
conversation is pursued in a written dialogue.
Extra-conversational supplements
The content available in these documents link the reader to other scholarship related to male gender construction in elementary schools. One type of link is
to specific articles and quoted material (much as a footnote would do) that sheds light on or that informed some aspect of the main conversation. Another
provides what we are calling an "excurses" based on synthesis of other research or scholarly thought that speaks to a particular area of interest in the
conversation. A third link is to a reference or suggested reading list that readers might find helpful in their own research into our topic.
Intra-transcript connections
During the conversations the three participants often revisited previous topics or raised new issues that had some relation to previous topics. This fourth
type of link allows the reader to jump back and forth to other parts of the conversation that might enlarge the understanding of an individual participant's
perspective on a given issue.
In Closing
One of the most common criticisms of qualitative research in general, but especially of internally-focused, conversational styles of research is what appears
to be a lack of validity and methodological and interpretive rigor (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002; Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001). At the risk of slipping into a "recalcitrant empiricism" (Heap, 1995, p. 271), we agree with those who believe that even research such as this, which falls far from the quantitative realm,
who argue that the "qualitative ethic calls for researchers to substantiate their interpretations and findings with a public accounting of themselves and the
processes of their research" (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002, p. 35). We agree with Creswell and Miller (2000), however, in that ways in which qualitative researchers have proposed that we deal with issues of validity and interpretation can be more confusing than the research itself. To help focus our own
concern with have chosen to look at validity more in terms of the interpretation and use we made of our data than on the design, methodology or process of
data collection (Cresswell & Miller, 2000; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983).
Public Accountability
Some fellow duoethnographers will disagree with the need for so much attention to validity but we were sensitive to some early critique of duoethnography,
even from a number of fellow qualitative researchers, that kept asking, "So what?" and "Isn't this really just a long conversation?" We do not feel it is
necessary for anyone to justify their approach to or the meaning of their research, especially if it provides insight into their practice or helps their own
development as persons, scholars, and teachers. However, we do worry that without sustained and deliberate attention to the rigor, however defined,
techniques like duoethnography or any other autobiographically-based or self-study inquiries run the risk of becoming introverted rather than introspective
and of not respecting the traditions or methods of the research disciplines on which they draw: autobiography, history, ethnography, and so on. We agree
with Bullough and Pinnegar's (2001) caution regarding any self-study research.
In order to assert any authority a study must do so from the frame of frames of the borrowed methodology as well as
from the virtuosity of scholarship established in the piece of writing itself . . . . A claim to be studying oneself does not
bring with it an excuse from rigor (p. 15).
In addition to the more general concern with rigor, we feel even more strongly about the transparency of most qualitative research. Rick's own work in
synthesizing professional development school research has come to the same conclusion as Anfara and colleagues (2002) who expressed three major
concerns regarding the transparency of most qualitative research: (1) simply stating that "themes emerged" means that the reader is expected to take the
word of the researcher that a credible analysis was done -- that those themes actually "have some congruence or verisimilitude with the reality of the
phenomena"; (2) the terms, triangulation, member checks, and so on were used as "magical incantations" with little evidence as to how they were achieved;
and (3) rarely is the reader provided with the interview protocol (p. 29). We realize that often it is the limitations of the publication process that force the
researcher into omitting those key elements of the methodology. That is why we chose the more flexible and less limiting electronic format.
Moving Toward Transparency
To highlight the ways in which we have tried to address the issues of transparency and rigor, we have borrowed a framework created by Cresswell and
Miller (2000), who created a matrix of sorts in which methodological procedures were aligned with the three major paradigms of qualitative research --
postpositivist, constructivist, and critical-- and the three possible lenses or assumptions through which the research might be examined -- the researcher,
the participants and the people external to the study. Their matrix suggests nine possible validity procedures. Below we have listed each of the nine and
provided the way(s) we have attempted to address each.
Triangulation - The use of photographs, comments from former students and/or family members, and the transparent, interactive role of the research
literature.
Member checking - Reading and rereading of transcripts by each conversant, follow-up and clarification questions from each partner, opportunity for each
participant to add on to or change previous remarks in reflective essays.
Audit trail - Nearly every thought in the research process, as well as, where and why it occurred when it did, is available to the reader in the most
transparent format we have yet encountered.
Disconfirming evidence - The same processes as were described in "Triangulation" as well as the critical reflection (see Rick's Revisionist History essay)
provided disconfirming evidence in several places. That evidence is discussed openly in several places and is available to the reader for his/her own
judgment.
Prolonged engagement - The main conversations alone have extended to four hours and are not yet completed. The written responses, supplementary
interviews, reflective essays and other components have added many additional hours. We do not intend to complete the process until we have reached a
point of saturation or redundancy or, as Dewey (1934) suggest, when the inquiry has "run its course to fulfillment" (p. 36).
Thick/Rich description - We have tried to accomplish this by providing autobiographical sketches, numerous descriptions of classroom practices and personal characteristics, and the personal reflection essays that extend the reader's knowledge of the participants and the settings in which they have worked and
developed.
Researcher reflexivity - Given the intensely personal nature and internal focus of duoethnography this standard is especially important in establishing
validity of the method. As cited earlier, personal transformation through critical reflection is a sort of measure of the effectiveness of the inquiry. we believe
we have demonstrated this process through the interactive hypertext, through showing exactly where the research literature entered and affected our
thinking, through reflective essays and the other various links that are intended to show where our thinking changed and where new conclusions were
reached. The Epilogue focuses particularly on critical insights but all the preceding text is what gives those critical insights their validity since it is there that
readers can follow our thinking and make their own judgments as to whether those insights arose legitimately from the research process.
Collaboration - This should be apparent in the very nature of duoethnography. But, again, we have tried to include as much evidence as possible as to where perspectives were shared or challenged, how each participant responded, and where each contributed.
Peer debriefing - Here, too, this process should be evident in the various interacting supplementary texts. This has also taken place "behind the scenes" in
that there have been numerous virtual and face-to-face opportunities for the small community of duoethnographers to share their work on-line and in front of conference audiences and discussants. In fact, the reason we have been preoccupied with exploring a format that would indeed demonstrate all these
validation processes arose largely from comments received during a presentation at a recent qualitative research conference.
Given the nature of naturalistic forms of research with its extensive conversations, observations, immersion in culture and the internal worlds of others and one's self, complete transparency will probably never be possible. But we maintain that we should continually move towards that end in ways that do not disrupt the integrity and intentions of qualitative inquiry. What we have attempted here is an experiment in doing just that and we will be interested in hearing the responses of anyone who hears or reads this study.
Prologue Hour 1 Hour 2 Hour 3