Two Women, a Bottle of Wine, and  The Bachelor

“This paper is not about presenting results from our study, per se, but about inviting readers (by modeling) to assess duoethnography as a tactic…” (697)

“duoethnographic methods, where we study ourselves, reduces the Othering and colonization present in varying degrees as a result of other methods” (699)

“by conducting research ‘with’ and not ‘on’ another, duoethnographers elude the research/researched dichotomy that situates the Other as a subject to be talked about” (699, quoting Norris & Sawyer, 2012, p20-21)

“duethnography views a person’s life as a curriculum” (701, quoting Norris & Sawyer, 2012, p12)

“without trust, disclosure is withheld, preventing a rich discussion of the phenomenon under investigation” (703, quoting Norris & Sawyer, 2012, p23)

“We operate across several paradigms, as paradigm proliferation “is a good thing to think with” in research (Lather, 2006).” (705)

“Richardson (1993, 2000) asserts that the relationships between subjectivity and objectivity, fact and fiction, the author and the subject, are not necessarily oppositional” (706)

“Creative Analytic Practice (CAP) as a way to do reflexivity, challenge traditional paradigms, and to come to a new unique understanding of a phenomenon” (706, paraphrasing Richards, 1993, 2000)

“styles of writing such as poetry, or screenplay can evoke lived experiences, drawing the reader closer to the experience and encouraging complex understandings” (706, paraphrasing Richards, 1993, 2000)

“CAP being a creative way of representing data and inviting the reader into the experience, CAP is a mode of analysis in which the author gains an understanding of herself and the phenomenon through the writing process” (706)

“Truth and validity are irrelevant. What exists is the rigor of the collaborative inquiry that is made explicit in the duoethnography itself” (706, quoting Norris & Sawyer, 2012, p20)

1. Substantive contribution: Does this piece contribute to our understanding of social-life?
2. Aesthetic merit: Does this piece succeed aesthetically? Is the text artistically shaped, satisfying, complex, and not boring?
3. Reflexivity: How did the author come to write this text? How has the author’s subjectivity been both a producer and a product of this text?
4. Impact: Does this affect me? emotionally? intellectually? generate new questions?
5. Expresses a reality: Does this text embody a fleshed out, embodied sense of lived-experience? (Richardson, 2000, p. 254)

“In writing research like a play, or in a multi-vocal multilayered way (c.f. Lather and Smithies, 1997), the reader is invited to enter into the piece and make her or his own interpretations” (706)

“dialogues are not only between the researchers but also between researcher(s) and artifacts of cultural media” (708, quoting Norris & Sawyer, 2012, p14)

“the empowering piece lies in the vulnerable, authentic, reflexive performances shared with you (the reader) in this document.” (712)