This article seeks to answer “how self-identification affects how one operates within selected socially constructed institutions.” (Thomas-Brown and Shaffer, 2016, p. 271).

For this research, the authors used a combination of “microcosmic ethnographic epistemology, critical theory (CT), critical race theory (CRT), critical ethnography (CE), and critical discourse analysis (CDA)” (Thomas-Brown and Shaffer, 2016, p. 271). This unique mix of approaches helps achieve two significant goals: understanding more about the educators’ ethnic and cultural identities, as well as their views on education and teaching. Additionally, this complex combination creates a unique lived experience for the educators themselves. The participants not only negotiated but “renegotiated their self-labeling, identity, and culture, and reflected on the importance of education across a spectrum of scales” (Thomas-Brown and Shaffer, 2016, p. 271). This could be seen as a limitation—research shouldn’t necessarily be a transformative experience for the participants—but let’s be honest, each research activity always affects participants to some degree. They reflect on their experiences and gain insights while answering interview questions or engaging in autoethnographic methods. So, I see this as more of an advantage than a limitation. It’s an example of the positive effect research can have on participants.

The theories and methods used do not seem to limit the study, as they align well with the research goals. The authors explain their choice of approach by mentioning that “this approach to ethnographic research allowed us to examine the process navigated by our research subjects as they negotiated and renegotiated their identities based on their family history, culture, and experiences contextualized by the stories of their peers.” (Thomas-Brown and Shaffer, 2016, p. 272).

The authors themselves acknowledge the existing critiques of CRT, noting that it “places too much emphasis on identity politics and that it is unidimensional in its focus on race, ethnicity, and gender; this article focuses on participants’ stories and storytelling.” (Thomas-Brown and Shaffer, 2016, p. 273).

By using several theories, such as Critical Race Theory and Critical Ethnography, the authors aimed to present “a unique perspective on labeling and self-labeling as a form of self-identification in the process of critically unraveling the role of educator identity in workplace interactions.” (Thomas-Brown and Shaffer, 2016, p. 273). What fascinated me in this research is that the authors use the term “micro-analytical lens” to get closer to the participants’ stories about their lived experiences and their “subjective, rather than objective, perceptions of truth.” (Thomas-Brown and Shaffer, 2016, p. 273).

This study used a unique combination of tools (self-reflection, group interviews, semi-structured observations, and informal interchanges) to encourage participants to negotiate and renegotiate their perspectives and identities as they told their own stories. At the core of these self-narratives is the idea that an individual’s storyline is the product of their preconscious understanding. Existing cultural models suggest that individuals recreate their multiple identities and adopt subjectivities based on the cultural discursive setting to which they are exposed (Gee, 1992). Fundamental to the narratives reported in this study is the concept of cultural identity tied to cultural citizenship.” (Thomas-Brown and Shaffer, 2016, p. 272).
As I understand it, the variety of ethnographic tools used, particularly the use of Critical Discourse Analysis, represents an innovative method. From what I have gathered from this article, CDA is thoughtfully integrated and used to reveal new insights that traditional ethnographic methods might overlook. This approach, compared to the classic autoethnographic method, offers a broader scope and multiple perspectives. It captures not only individual reflections (as in autoethnography) but also how these reflections interact with and are influenced by social dynamics in group settings. This combined method goes beyond describing experiences to critically analyze how language shapes and reflects power dynamics, identity construction, and social inequalities within both individual and group contexts, while autoethnography usually focuses more on the narrative content.

The process of data collection is described in detail. The authors explain the theoretical frameworks and approaches used in this research and describe all the steps of data collection, attaching the materials used as appendices. The authors “gathered data from a range of sources: participants’ reflective cultural autobiography (Appendix A), semi-structured observations of group discussion and interactions (Appendix B), and relatively informal conversations about a multiplicity of topics related to diversity.” (Thomas-Brown and Shaffer, 2016, p. 274). This methodological approach enables the researchers to explore the interplay between individual experiences and broader social structures, something that is often challenging in ethnographic research. However, “the subjectivity of the topic explored” (Thomas-Brown and Shaffer, 2016, p. 287) could be seen as a limitation because it presents challenges in generalizing the findings. Nevertheless, the authors attempt to “narrow the ontological gap between narratives and context using the research subjects’ small stories about the value they place on education and the factors that have influenced their perspectives.” (Thomas-Brown and Shaffer, 2016, p. 272).

Overall, this article seems to contribute more to the scientific field and methodology than to the specific topic of the relationship between educators’ ethnic identities and their professional practice. For example, the authors are convinced of the “importance of self-reflection as a critical ethnographic tool in articulating one’s identities.” (Thomas-Brown and Shaffer, 2016, p. 285).

------
Thomas-Brown, Karen, and LaShorage Shaffer. 2016. “My Identities Are Flexible: Narrating the Lived Experiences of a Group of Educators.” Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research 10 (4): 271–90. https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy.ulib.uits.iu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=119849267&site=ehost-live.