Academic and Philosophical Roots of SAL

 

Chapter 2

Academic and Philosophical Roots of SAL 

Where did Self-Action Leadership come from?

The short answer is that SAL is the result of a holistic, ongoing action research project I have been conducting in my life over the past 40 years. The long answer is that it was creatively and systematically hewn out of other, already existing academic and philosophical fields.

These topics include:

• Self-Leadership (S-L)
• Action Research (AR)
• Existentialism
• Autoethnography

This chapter provides background information on these four separate and distinct fields of scholarly inquiry by explaining their connection to SAL and the role each topic played in its creation.

Self-Leadership

Self-Action Leadership is closely related to self-leadership (S-L) theory, which is a derivative of leadership theory. Leadership is defined in many different ways by many different leaders, scholars, and organizations. At Freedom Focused, we like the definition given by leadership guru, John Maxwell, who has stated that, "leadership is influence—nothing more, nothing less." (1)

While our definition is a little more technical and nuanced, it remains rooted in Maxwell's idea of influence and more specifically references those thoughts, words, and actions intentionally undertaken to influence specific, correlated, and desired thoughts, speech, and actions in others.

LEADERSHIP

Thoughts, words, and actions intentionally undertaken to influence

specific, correlated, and desired thoughts, speech, and actions in others.

In essence, LEADERSHIP is the art of influencing others to willingly do what you want them to do. In framing it this way, however, it is vital to note the keys words: "influence," and "willingly." Any attempts to compel others to follow one's lead by means of bullying, coercion, manipulation, or threats are not true leaders.

Though he never held elected office, Gandhi's
leadership influence changed the course of his country.

Why?

Because while bullying, coercion, manipulation, or threats may work in the short run, these same methods always fail in the long run. 

What causes this inevitable long-term failure? 

In the long-run, you cannot control another person's mind, heart, or will. You may be able to temporarily coerce someone's speech or actions to your liking; but in the long-run, no one can ever force another human being to think, feel, or believe something that goes against their mind, heart, or will.

It is IMPOSSIBLE.   

The authentic exercise of real leadership takes place only when someone is influenced to willingly follow a leader's advice, counsel, or direction by virtue of something the leader said or did.  

Whereas leadership is the influence you exert on other people, self-leadership is the influence you exert on YOURSELF. Self-leadership is a prerequisite to leadership in the same way that followership is a prerequisite to leadership. We define followership (2) as the consistent, devoted, and willing adherence to the directions, instructions, and tenets of a leader.

FOLLOWERSHIP

The consistent, devoted, and willing adherence to the directions, instructions, and tenets of a leader. 

Good followers are not merely mindless automatons that obey a leader. Rather, they are wise and independent free thinkers who willingly extend their advocacy, loyalty, and support to leaders they believe in and seek to emulate.  

Self-leadership experts in academe emphasize that: "if we ever hope to be effective leaders of others, we need first to be able to lead ourselves effectively." (3) At Freedom Focused, we completely agree, and add to this premise a parallel corollary as it relates to followership; namely, "if we ever hope to be effective leaders of others, we need first to be effective followers of principle-centered leaders who consistently exhibit sound moral character."   

Self-leadership is all about the leadership (or influence) you exert upon YOURSELF. More specifically, we defined it as: cognitive and behavioral strategies intentionally utilized to accomplish something. 

SELF-LEADERSHIP (S-L)

Cognitive and behavioral strategies intentionally utilized to accomplish something. 

All human beings are self-leaders—whether they know it, like it, and want to be, or not. This includes YOU and me. If you are a member of the human race, the question is not whether or not you are a self-leader; YOU are. The question is always: what kind of self-leader are you? And how effective are you at leading yourself to accomplish tasks, goals, and objectives in your life and/or career?

Self-leadership in academe was pioneered primarily by Charles C. Manz of the University of Massachusetts. Manz is the father of the field and its most prolific author. Many others have assisted him in these pioneering efforts, foremost of whom are: Christopher P. Neck of Arizona State University (and formerly Virginia Tech), and Jeffery D. Houghton of West Virginia University.   

Action Research

Action research (AR) is an organized means of putting research into action. It involves a process whereby a person or group intentionally and strategically studies a problem in an effort to find solutions, obtain results, and otherwise improve the quality of life for those involved. AR is a cyclical research process that involves four (4) different steps.  

ACTION RESEARCH (AR)

A 4-step cyclical process of identifying problems and then seeking to strategically solve them. 

According to action research scholars Gary W. Kuhne and B. Allan Quigley, the Four Core Processes of Action Research include: Planning, Acting, Observing, and Reflecting.

PROCESS 1. PLANNING:  Developing a plan to study and then address a problem.

PROCESS 2. ACTING:  Implementing your plan.

PROCESS 3. OBSERVING:  Paying attention to results and recording relevant data.

PROCESS 4. REFLECTING:  Analyzing outcomes and then revising plans for a new cycle of action. (4)

The Four (cyclical) Core Processes of Action Research

In addition to these Four Core Processes, additional sub-steps and other data-gathering techniques are employed. 

According to AR scholar, Rodney Beaulieu, there are "various ways action research is defined and applied." For example, it can "be accomplished through a collaborative process ... [or] done alone as an independent process." (5)

Self-Action Leadership utilizes the latter, independent process. This does not mean, however, that SAL initiatives or action research never involve people; they often do. It merely means that the research initiative is typically engaged by and for an individual as opposed to a group. This unique brand of action research—where S-L meets AR—is called Self-Action Research, and is defined as: action research applied by, to, and for the self to gain self-awareness, aid self-improvement, solve personal problems, and nurture growth and freedom.

SELF-ACTION RESEARCH (SAR)

Action research applied by, to, and for the self to gain self-awareness,

aid self-improvement, solve personal problems, and nurture one's growth and freedom.

SAL assists us in effectively and meaningfully engaging SAR. Moreover, the SAL Model, which will be introduced in BOOK the FIFTH, strategically mirrors the cyclical processes of AR.

Existentialism

Existentialism, also referred to as Existential Philosophy, can be defined in various ways—depending on what elements of the philosophy are being emphasized. For the purposes of this Life Leadership textbook, we have defined it as a: philosophical method that values and consults human experience—in conjunction with scientific reasoning and rational thought—in the process of constructing meaning about reality. 

EXISTENTIALISM

A philosophical method that values and consults human experience—in conjunction with scientific reasoning and rational thought—in the process of constructing meaning about reality. 

We live in a world where science and so-called objective reality are typically valued above all other forms of knowledge. This is particularly the case in academe. To a large extent, this is a good thing. We can, after all, thank the Italian Renaissance (1300-1600), the Age of Enlightenment (1685-1815), the Industrial Revolution (1760-1840) and subsequent Era of Industry (1840-1995), followed by the Information Age (1994-present) for extricating the Western World from the Dark Ages and propelling us into an age of modern medicine, science, safety, sanitation, housing, technology, transportation, agriculture, commerce, communications, civil discourse, democracy, etc. 

Suffice it to say, we owe a lot to scientific discovery and other quantum advancements in abstract and rational thought. However, this fact does not—nor will it ever—negate the vital roles that personal experience, visceral intuition, spirituality, and Serendipity play in our interpretation and understanding of reality. Such metaphysical phenomena demonstrate that "life is bigger than logic." (6)

In his book, Existentialism: For and Against, Paul Roubiczek describes existentialism as being a rejection of all purely abstract thinking, of a purely logical or scientific philosophy; in short, a rejection of the absoluteness of reason." (7)

This is not to say that existential philosophers reject science or reason out-of-hand; Roubiczek certainly does not. He merely rejects the idea that science and human reasoning alone captures a holistic panorama of truth and reality. In other words, science and rationality remain vital parts of the broad panorama of reality; they just don't make up the whole picture.

Any honest and educated person with significant life experience knows full well there is more to truth and reality than what we can sentiently detect and ascertain. After all, many realities indiscernible to our five senses can, in fact, be scientifically measured, managed, and manipulated; for example: cellular waves, gamma rays, microwaves, radio waves, x-rays, etc.

To an existentialist, these realities barely scratch the surface of the cornucopia of experiential phenomena and other metaphysical realities that exist beyond the immediate purview of our sentient selves. Accessing this rich storehouse of truth and reality is fully attainable and discernable only through real life experiences. 

In the words of Roubiczek:  

"We rarely pay enough attention to the deeper meaning of our personal experience and of our feelings; we disregard inner knowledge, but we are beginning to feel, I believe, that this emphasis on abstract thought is impoverishing or even endangering the human world. The whole world seems to lose significance, and man is estranged from himself. Our domination over nature is becoming more and more complete; man can make use of the most minute particles and, perhaps soon, of outer space; he is encroaching on the very structure of the universe and, by means of new medical techniques and new drugs, on human character. Yet while the enigmas of nature are solved one by one, each man becomes to himself a greater enigma, and there is more and more chaos in our own inner lives and in human affairs." (8)

As Roubiczek makes clear, there are many metaphysical elements of life and reality that human beings know to be real, authentic, and true—not because we can sentiently detect them, scientifically access them, or empirically prove them; but simply because we experience them in the living laboratory of real life. From our varied uses of unseen medical and technological powers to profound and powerful emotional and spiritual experiences of the mind, heart, and viscera, our lives are greatly enriched on a daily (if not hourly) basis due to elements and realities that exist beyond the detection of our relatively paltry five senses alone. 

One of the most compelling examples of this metaphysical truism is found in the reality and occurrence of human love. Anyone who has ever authentically loved another person, be it in a familial, platonic, or romantic sense, knows that LOVE is real—that it exists—because of one's authentic experience of the phenomena. Our inability to scientifically or sentiently capture its essence does not diminish its reality and authenticity. The experience of love is sufficient to prove its existence.

Even if it were possible to somehow scientifically capture and gauge the metaphysical essence of love, one would not need a calculator, computer, or other technological device to empirically validate its existence. One knows that love is real because of one's pure experience of the phenomena.  

The idea that personal experience serves as a key variable in our understanding of truth and reality is a basic premise of existentialism. According to Roubiczek, existential philosophy "came to be developed ... [because] science, being impersonal, cannot [always] help us when we want to deal with personal experience," (9) and since our human "reason has limitations," (10) "we have to admit experience as evidence." (11) 

As with anything, some existentialists take this premise to extremes; but not Roubiczek. His goal was to access a proper balance between reason and experience in order to "find a basis for an equilibrium, a way out of [the] violent interplay of action and reaction which has always driven [Western] thought into one-sidedness." (12)

Roubiczek points out that the Age of Reason was an appropriate reaction against the scientific infancy of the Medieval Period, but that our own age has demonstrated "that a purely logical, rational, scientific way of thinking illuminates only a strictly limited sector of reality," (13) and therefore limits our holistic conceptions of reality when exclusively applied. In other words, during the modern and postmodern eras, the pendulum has swung too far the other way to disproportionately favor sterile rationalities over viscerally-attuned insights or experiential-based wisdom.  

One of the consequences of this imbalance has been our inability as a collective culture to "discover basic truth[s] ... [and] find firm [moral] ground to stand upon." (14) As a result, "morality appears as the mere product of social, national, [and] historical conditions, changing like fashions." (15) To which Roubiczek then poses a particularly piercing question: "Are we still able to solve moral problems ... outside the scope of science?" (16)

At Freedom Focused, we answer this question with a resounding YES! But only if we allow experience and metaphysical laws of nature a place at the table of discussion. Roubiczek likewise answers this question in the affirmative, but adds that "we cannot begin to grasp their true meaning as long as we rely on abstract thought alone." (17). 

He then points out that: 

"There is meaning in many of our experiences, of nature and of human nature, in works of art, in books of literature or wisdom or religion; thus the urge to find meaning is so strong that it is part of our make-up, an undeniable experience. ... [Thus] we have to conclude that reason is not absolute, but limited, that belief in an absolute reason is unreasonable—and that we should find a way of thinking which could help us to deal with [life's] hauntingly real experiences ... experiences [which] demand the acceptance of something which goes beyond reason—the acceptance of the limits set by our human nature, of the absolute values which can be neither derived in a rational nor proved in a scientific way, of a transcendental reality which, by definition, must transcend reason immeasurably. In short, reason must not dominate, but serve. (18) ... Philosophy, therefore, should start from one's own experience, one's own inner knowledge, and it is inner knowledge which should be qualified, enlarged, and in this way enriched. One's own experience must be admitted as evidence. Reason ... can serve this approach, but it must never [exclusively] dictate." (19)

The purported value of this Life Leadership textbook is rooted, in large part, in Roubiczek's compelling existentialist argument. The Self-Action Leadership Philosophy, Theory, and Model are products of self-leadership oriented, existentialist-imbued, action research conducted, and then autoethnographically analyzed over an extended (40 year) period of time. While I gathered and analyzed empirical data throughout the process, my academic constructions are only partially scientific. The rest is rooted in the "hauntingly real experiences" (20) of my own life and career—and the lives and careers of others.

Some may criticize this approach as being only quasi-academic and ultimately unscientific. In response, I echo Roubiczek's existentialist argument: when confronting the profound complexity of real lives, careers, relationships, and experiences, a balanced approach—between rationalism and visceralism—is the best route to take because of the obvious limitations of science and empiricism alone. Accordingly, it made sense to approach this extensive and expansive study autoethnographically, for such is the scholarly tool that specifically deals with the research and analysis of PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

Speaking of which, it's now time to introduce this unique brand of personal ethnography.

Autoethnography

Autoethnography is a new-age, postmodern, qualitative research method utilized in the social sciences. It is an academic vehicle whereby scholars can conduct research on oneself, by oneself, and for the benefit and enlightenment of oneself and others.  

AUTOETHNOGRAPHY

Scholarly research conducted on oneself and by oneself

for the benefit and enlightenment of oneself and others.

In addition to this official Freedom Focused definition, the following statements about autoethnography from leading scholars in the field shed further light on exactly what autoethnography is and the purposes it aims to achieve.  

• "[Autoethnography is] an intriging and promising qualitative method that offers a way of giving voice to personal experience for the purpose of extending sociological understanding." (21)

• "[Autoethnography is] an emerging qualitative research method that allows the author to write in a highly personalized style, drawing on his or her experience to extend understanding about a societal phenomenon." (22)

        —Sarah Wall, University of Alberta

• "Autoethnographic approaches are flexible, reflexive, and reflective of life as lived; they do not follow a rigid list of rule-based procedures. Often, they are multivoiced and include interaction amongst researchers and participants in the research context, as well as stories participants bring to the project." (23)

• "Autoethnography offers the potential to expand scholarship about human experience. At the same time, it can assist us in our pursuit of happiness and living fully; provide companionship and coping strategies for dealing with personal disappointments, traumas, and losses; and help us understand, reframe, and live through collective natural and human-made disasters that increasingly seem to be part of our lives. ... Effective autoethnographies are not victim tales; on the contrary, writing autoethnography well produces survivor tales for the writer and for those who read them. Accomplished autoethnographers ... strive to open up a moral and ethical conversation with readers about the possibility of living life well." (24)

        —Carolyn Ellis, University of South Florida

Autoethnography is a relatively new topic of academic inquiry and vehicle for scholarly research. A qualitative research method, autoethnography is derived from ethnography (the study of individuals and groups within cultures). Ethnography, in turn, it hewn out of the broader field of anthropology (the study of cultures). 

Autoethnography is not without its critics. On the surface, it can come across as an academic excuse for narcissism, and if misused, can certainly become a instrument for scholarly self-absorption. According to Robert J. Nash, some "have grave doubts about the rigor of [autoethnographic scholarship]." (25) "Some have called it soft. Others think it is touchy-feely. Still others describe it as easy. A few think it is anti-intellectual. Some question its reliability and validity." (26)

Nash, however, remains a proponent of autoethnography and asserts that these "stereotypes are unfortunate." (27) The balance of his book (28) offers a cogent apology for the academic validity, scholarly legitimacy, and practical utility of autoethnography—or, as he calls it: "Scholarly Personal Narrative," or just "SPN" for short (29). At the forefront of Nash's advocacy lies his claim that autoethnography resonates with readers and is therefore more likely to be remembered, internalized, and utilized than traditional social science research. Nash's claim comes from his own experience reading autoethnographic material produced by his students over the decades.

"I have been a college professor for over three-and-a-half decades in a professional school. ... I've read tens of thousands of students' papers since I first started teaching in higher education. ... Truth be told, and not wanting to offend anyone, I remember almost nothing of what I've read, unless the work was done in the last few years; or, more honestly, in the last few months. ... Yet here's the vital exception: I do tend to remember the scholarly writing of my students that combines both narrative and personal elements. Did I just say that I remember it? That is too weak. I meant that I thrive on it. I can't imagine not reading personal narrative writing at this particular time in my career. ... [And] ironically, these creative papers were [also] the ones that pushed [the students] the hardest. ... Good teaching, good helping, and good leadership are, in one sense, all about storytelling and story-evoking. It is in the mutual exchange of stories that professionals and scholars are able to meet clients and students where they actually live their lives. It is in the mutual sharing of our personal stories, particularly in the willingness of professionals to listen to the stories of others, that we make the deepest connections with those we are serving." (30)

At Freedom Focused, we agree with Nash. When properly exercised, autoethnographic research and writing can assist us in making important and valuable academic contributions and discoveries that can translate into practical insights and benefits to self and others. Thus it was that Socrates—that great Greek of antiquity—wisely encouraged and invited us to Know Ourselves. Autoethnography provides an academic vehicle for accomplishing self-knowledge, which E.F. Schumacher argues has been wanting in the West for quite some time.

"Instruction on cultivating self-knowledge ... has been almost entirely lacking in the West for the last hundred years. This is why we cannot trust one another, why most people live in a state of continuous anxiety, why, despite all our technologies, communication becomes ever more difficult, and why we need ever more organized welfare to plaster over the gaping holes torn by the progressive disappearance of spontaneous social cohesion." (31) 

Autoethnography as a scholarly field is divided into two separate camps, namely: EVOCATIVE autoethnography and ANALYTIC autoethnography. The former camp is more aesthetic and artistic, while the latter is more traditional and scholarly. Thus, autoethnographic research can be presented through scholarly prose, artistic writing (including poetry), a combination of the two, or something else entirely (e.g. painting, music, performative art, etc.). 

EVOCATIVE autoethnography was pioneered by Carolyn Ellis and Albert Bochner, two scholars and colleagues from the University of South Florida. The purpose of evocative autoethnography is not so much to create new knowledge, but to evoke emotional responses in the reader by virtue of the "impact personal stories have" (32) in hopes of "open[ing] up a moral and ethical conversation with readers about the possibility of living life well." (33) Evocative autoethnography is rooted in postmodern philosophical premises and is therefore non-analytical in nature. It is also uninterested in didacticism. 

ANALYTIC autoethnography, on the other hand, is the brainchild of Leon Anderson, an emeritus professor of sociology at Utah State University. His analytic approach evolved as a response to the evocative movement. It calls for autoethnographic studies to be conducted in more traditional, academic ways—in the spirit of more traditional ethnographic, anthropological, and sociological methods. 

According to Anderson, "the purpose of analytic [auto]ethnography is not simply to document personal experience, to provide an 'insider's perspective,' or to evoke emotional resonance with the reader, ... [but] to use empirical data to gain insight into some broader set of social phenomena than those provided by the data themselves." (34) As Anderson puts it, analytical autoethnographers maintain a "commitment to an analytic agenda" (35) throughout the process of exploratory research. 

Anderson identifies "five key features of analytic autoethnography," (36) as follows:

1.  Complete member researcher (CMR) status

2.  Analytic reflexivity

3.  Narrative visibility of the researcher's self

4.  Dialogue with informants beyond the self

5.  Commitment to a theoretical analysis (37)

Conscientious observers of the extensive autoethnographic research study contained in this comprehensive Life Leadership textbook will readily notice the creative, reflexive, and holistic application of these five features of analytic autoethnography in addition to the emotional evocation of the autobiographical stories themselves.  

Self-Action Leadership

Self-Action Leadership was forged at the nexus where self-leadership (S-L), action research (AR), autoethnography, and a balanced brand of existentialism meet and synergistically join forces. An illustration of this theoretical merger can be found below.  

Having introduced, defined, and explicated the four academic progenitors of Self-Action Leadership, the time has now arrived to introduce SAL itself. 

If you would like to learn more, then read on!

In Your Journal

• Define, explain, and provide an example of the following terms in your own words:
• Followership
• Leadership
• Self-leadership
• Action Research
• Self-Action Research
• Existentialism
• Autoethnography
• Self-Action Leadership (SAL)

• Why do you think Dr. JJ chose to hew SAL out of existing academic fields and constructs?

• Do you think there is value in studying the SELF in a systematic and academic manner? If so, why? Or why not?

—Dr. JJ

Wednesday, April 10, 2024

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, USA

Author's Note: This is the 383rd Blog Post Published by Freedom Focused LLC since November 2013 and the 194th consecutive weekly blog published since August 31, 2020.   

Click HERE for a compete listing of the other 382 FF Blog Articles 

Click HERE for a complete listing of Freedom Focused SAL QUOTES  

Click HERE for a complete listing of Freedom Focused SAL POEMS   

Click HERE to access the FULL TEXT of Dr. JJ's Psalms of Life: A Poetry Collection

Click HERE for a complete listing of Self-Action Leadership Articles

Click HERE for a complete listing of Fitness, Heath, & Wellness Articles

Click HERE for a complete listing of Biographical & Historical Articles

Click HERE for a complete listing of Current Events, Cultural, Philosophical, & Miscellaneous Articles

Click HERE for a complete listing of Dr. JJ's Autobiographical Articles

.........................

Tune in NEXT Wednesday for another article on a Self-Action Leadership related topic.  

And if you liked this blog post, please share it with your family, friends, colleagues, and students—and encourage them to sign up to receive future articles for FREE every Wednesday.

To sign up, please email freedomfocused@gmail.com and say SUBSCRIBE, or just YES, and we will ensure you receive a link to each new blog article every Wednesday.  

Click HERE to buy the SAL Textbooks    

Chapter 2 Notes:

1.  Maxwell, J. (2007). Leadership is Influence: Nothing More, Nothing Less: How to Overcome the Common Myths of Leadership. Online article in CTPastors. URL: https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2007/july-online-only/090905.html

2.  For more information on the concept of FOLLOWERSHIP, see Wren, J. T. (Ed.). (1995). The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages. New York, NY: Free Press. Chapters 29-31.

•   Gardner, J. W. (1995). Leaders and Followers (pp. 185-188).

•   Kelley, R. E. (1995). In Praise of Followers. (pp. 193-204).

•   Rost, J. C. (1995). Leaders and Followers are the People in this Relationship.

  (pp. 189-192).
  

3.  Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2010). Mastering Self-Leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal Excellence (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Page 1.

4.  Kuhne, G. W., and B. A. Quigley, Understanding and Using Action Research in Practice Settings, in: A. B. Quigley, and G. W. Kuhne (eds.). (1997). Creating Practical Knowledge Through Action Research: Posing Problems, Solving Problems, and Improving Daily Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 23–40. Page 25.

5.  Beaulieu, R. B. (2013). “Action Research: Trends and Variations.” Canadian Journal of Action Research, 14(3), pp. 29–39. Page 29.

6.  Schumacher, E. F. (1977). A Guide for the Perplexed. New York, NY: Perennial. Page 123.

7.  Roubiczek, P. (1964). Existentialism: For and Against. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Page 10. 

8.  Ibid. Pages 11-12.

9.  Ibid. Page 4.

10.  Ibid.

11.  Ibid. Page 5.

12.  Ibid. Page 16.

13. Ibid. Page 1

14.  Ibid. Page 15

15.  Ibid.

16.  Ibid. Page 12.

17.  Ibid.  

18.  Ibid. Pages 6-7.

19.  Ibid.  Pages 10-11.  

20.  Ibid. Page 6.

21.  Wall, S. (2008). "Easier Said than Done: Writing an Autoethnography." International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Volume 7. Issue 1. Pages 38-53. Page 38.

22.  Wall, S. (2005). "An Autoethnography on Learning about Autoethnography." International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Volume 5. Issue 2. Pages 1-12. Page 1. 

23.  Ellis, C. (2009). Revision: Autoethnographic Reflections on Life and Work. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Page 16. 

24.  Ibid. Pages 16-17. 

25.  Nash, R. J. (2004). Liberating Scholarly Writing: The Power of Personal Narrative. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Page 4.

26.  Ibid. 

27.  Ibid.  

28.  Nash, R. J. (2004). Liberating Scholarly Writing: The Power of Personal Narrative. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

29.  Ibid. Page 4.

30.  Ibid. Pages 1-2. 

31.  Schumacher, E. F. (1977). A Guide for the Perplexed. New York, NY: Perennial. Pages 133-134. 

32.  Ellis, C. S., & Bochner, A. P. (2006). "Analyzing analytic autoethnography: An Autopsy." Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. Volume 35. Issue 4. Pages 429-449. doi:10.1177/0891241606286979. Page 430.

33.  Ellis, C. (2009). Revision: Autoethnographic Reflections on Life and Work. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Page 17.

34.  Anderson, L. (2006). “Analytic Autoethnography.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Volume 35. Issue 4 (p. 373–395). Pages 386-387.

35.  Ibid. Page 386. 

36.  Ibid. Page 378.

37.  Ibid.