1382 Qualitative Health Research by which positive and negative outcomes are estab- lished. My goal in this article is to delineate the research methods of both ethnography and autoethnography and then to identify the (dis)advantages that can arise from undertaking multiple-method and/or mixed-method research that uses these approaches concurrently. In this article, definitions of ethnography and autoethnography, and three pertinent paradigms, are followed by an analy- sis of the (dis)advantages of combining these two meth- ods within each specific paradigm. Different Approaches and Philosophies of Ethnography In its broadest sense, ethnography is a form of social research (Grbich, 1998) that reveals its sociological and anthropological roots (Vidich & Lyman, 2003). Its objective is to describe and interpret a specific culture or social group. For a study to be called ethnographic, a large proportion of the following four characteristics must be present: (a) the study is undertaken to explore social phenomena (b) the collected data may be coded before collection is complete (c) the number of cases studied is small, with the potential for studying only one case and (d) qualitative analysis is used to interpret the meaning and functions of human practices (Grbich, 1998). Regardless of the subtype or school of ethnogra- phy that is being applied (e.g., functionalism, symbolic interactionism, cultural and cognitive anthropology, crit- ical theory, or postmodernism) (Creswell, 1998), the basic elements of ethnography as the study of people���s lives over a prolonged period through direct observation, interview, and mute evidence collection remain approx- imately the same (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2005). The variance of these approaches can occur within the ratio- nale for undertaking the study, the exact methods of application of these data collection methods, the analy- sis of the collected data, and the emphasis placed on the truth-value of the findings. Nevertheless, all forms of ethnography serve to produce a cultural portrait: an overview of the entire culture that is obtained by pulling all of its parts together while respecting the nuances and complexity of its systems (Creswell, 1998). Although many subtypes exist, mainstream ethnogra- phy, which will henceforth be referred to as traditional ethnography, is usually undertaken by an individual (who typically belongs to the majority or hegemony) and tar- gets a minority culture (Vidich & Lyman, 2003). This is a top-down process that is motivated (and often justified) by the majority as a consequence of a perceived incon- sistency between the behavior and/or practices of a tar- geted minority group and the requirements dictated by the social standards that have been established by the majority (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2005 Oliffe, 2005). The dedication of resources to the study of ���high-risk��� populations is a graphic example of this process. Traditional ethnography typically relies on someone out- side the target group to undertake cultural research by applying the methods of direct observation (which can vary from exclusive observation to complete participa- tion), mute evidence and cultural artifact review, and in-depth interviewing these methods are used to help this outsider gain an understanding of the group (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2005). The result of this process is to provide an emic perspective���that is, the description that the members of the group give about their own culture���combined with an etic perspective that is, the researcher���s interpretation of the culture (Polit, Beck, & Hungler, 2001). In combining the emic and etic perspectives, ethnographic research could be said to pro- vide a survival guide for individuals who wish to gain access to the group that has been studied. In contrast, autoethnography is a new method in the field and has been used to describe numerous other methods that are similar yet unique in their approach to fieldwork. Autoethnography is a reformulation of the traditional binary emic and etic positions. In some cases the binary opposition is completely erased, whereas in others the two perspectives are doubled back onto each other to produce an even deeper understanding. As a general rule, autoethnography requires that a researcher study (a) his or her own culture, (b) a culture into which he or she has been adopted and accepted com- pletely, (c) the culture of the self, or (d) the culture of another as it relates to the self of the researcher (Ellis & Bochner, 2003). In its broadest sense, autoethnography addresses ���the research process (graphy) [writing, recording], culture (ethnos), and self (auto)��� (Reed- Danahay, 1997, p. 2, author���s addition, emphasis added). All the existing subforms of autoethnography vary in their definitions, emphasis, and application of these three fundamental items. In the first option, above, the researcher undertakes an ethnographic study of his or her culture using the afore- mentioned traditional ethnographic research methods. This method varies only slightly from traditional ethnog- raphy, in that it allows for an acceptance of minorities as capable of studying themselves. It is commonly known as native autoethnography (Ellis & Bochner, by on March 21, 2009 http://qhr.sagepub.com Downloaded from

2003). Option 2 is similar to Option 1: The researcher is a complete member of the group however, he or she originated from outside the group. This style is known as complete-member autoethnography and occurs when the researcher is seen as a full member not only by the group but also by himself or herself during or prior to the research process (Ellis & Bochner, 2003). In Option 3, the researcher uses the same methods of ethnographic inquiry that are employed in traditional ethnography but applies them to a personal experience. The researcher then uses the exploratory process and its findings to infer typical (or possible) reactions by other members of his or her culture. For example, a study of the personal experi- ence of losing a loved one would include other individu- als with whom the principal researcher, who is simultaneously the subject of study, has intimate rela- tionships (friends and family) as well as regular social interactions (coworkers and acquaintances). This form of inquiry is typically called personal autoethnography (Ellis & Bochner, 2003). Finally, in Option 4, the researcher capitalizes on personal experiences, reactions, emotions, and thoughts as they relate to his or her own or a foreign culture. The results of this autoethnography arise from the researcher���s focusing on why, how, where, and in what context, and so on, he or she experienced a particular sensation, and uses these insights into his or her reactions as the basis for understanding the culture under study. This approach is known as reflexive autoethnography (Ellis & Bochner, 2003). However, the abovementioned methods further subdivide and acquire different meanings depending on the paradigm of inquiry within which the study is situated. Although the broad definitions of these two distinct forms of ethnography (traditional versus auto) are similar across paradigms, their precise applications (i.e., data collection and analysis) change in syntax, meaning, and method. In fact, the greatest differences between specific ethnographic methods occur across the paradigm span. According to Grbich (1998) and Hammersley and Atkinson (2005), ethnography can be divided into three cate- gories: classical, critical, and postmodern. These coincide with Lincoln and Guba���s (2003) paradigms of positivism, postpositivism, and critical theory, respec- tively. Within each of the paradigms, traditional ethnog- raphy and autoethnography exist, but because the underlying philosophies of these paradigms are dif- ferent, the application and goals of the two methods are fundamentally dissimilar. Moreover, please note that two uses of the term critical are being employed, each with a different meaning. For clarity, the ethno- graphic method has been written with its associated paradigm in parentheses. Refer to Table 1 for a syn- opsis of the paradigms, the ethnographic approaches, and a list of (dis)advantages. Classical (Positivistic) Ethnography By definition, classical ethnography is the tradi- tional form of cultural research. It was made popular by researchers such as Malinowski (1984a 1984b) O���Byrne / Combining Qualitative Approaches 1383 Table 1 Synopsis of the Paradigms Positivism Postpositivism Critical Theory Ontology Naive realism ultimate reality Critical realism probabilistically Historical realism attainable reality Epistemology Dualist objective truth Dualist critical objective probable Transactional subjective truth Purpose Explanation prediction control Explanation prediction control Critique transform emancipation Main advantage Theory testing Triangulation to gain a deeper Political involvement of minority appreciation of culture Main disadvantage Resource capacity and capability Resource capacity and capability Possible creation of risk possibility for political resistance Name of ethnographic Classical ethnography Critical ethnography Postmodern ethnography method Commensurability Traditional Auto (of own) Auto (adoptive) Auto (of self) Auto (using self) Source: Adapted from Lincoln and Guba (2003). by on March 21, 2009 http://qhr.sagepub.com Downloaded from