The postmodernist movement has challenged the long-standing binary divisions in anthropology, such as self/other and civilization/barbarism, prompting ethnography to break away from traditional scientific paradigms that focused solely on objective knowledge production. This shift has led to the emergence of de-centered, pluralistic, and individualized writing practices. From the "revered paradigm of natural sciences" to a "humanistic value-oriented paradigm," and from "realism" to "reflexivity," researchers are encouraged to incorporate their own experiences, emotions, and reflections into socio-cultural studies. "Autoethnography" has thus emerged as a self-reflective mirror for anthropological writing, becoming a new paradigm for ethnographic research and writing. The term "autoethnography," or autobiographical ethnography, first appeared in the 1970s. In 1975, Karl Heider (1975) used "auto-ethnography" to describe the Dani people's understanding of their world. Walter Goldschmidt (1977 )emphasized the role of personal background and subjective experience in ethnographic writing, asserting that "all ethnography is autoethnography." In 1979, David Hayano (1979) focused on how anthropologists conduct and write ethnographies of "insiders," marking the first formal use of the term "autoethnography." In the 1990s, scholars like Carolyn Ellis and Art Bochner helped refine the concept of autoethnography, which gradually became widely practiced and conceptualized as a research method.

Understanding autoethnography requires exploring both the autobiographical and ethnographic dimensions. Unlike other ethnographic paradigms, autoethnography does not focus on "other cultures" or "other landscapes," as traditional ethnography does. Instead, it uses the researcher as both the field and the method, presenting the unique life and emotional experiences of the individual through self-narratives. In this way, ethnography transcends the traditional emic and etic dichotomy, both reflecting the deep meanings of individual lives and addressing broader cultural and social contexts, revealing how micro-level individuals interact with and weave into macro-level societal structures.

As a postmodern research paradigm, the intrinsic value of autoethnography lies not in a complete break from traditional ethnography, but in a profound reflection and extension of methodological approaches. Ontologically, the traditional scientific ethnographic paradigm, epitomized by Bronisław Malinowski, adheres to a positivist scientific stance, assuming that "reality" exists independently and objectively from the researcher(Zhu, 2011), with the researcher observing and describing cultural and social structures. In contrast, autoethnography challenges this assumption by viewing "reality" as multi-layered, fluid, and subjective, emphasizing the interweaving of individual experience, emotion, and social environment. Epistemologically, traditional ethnography relies on external observation and the collection of "objective" data, with researchers expected to maintain neutrality and distance. Autoethnography, however, posits that knowledge originates from personal experience and self-reflection. Influenced by phenomenology, autoethnography focuses on the relativity of meaning and personal experience within different contexts, with researchers exploring individual "truths" rather than pursuing a singular, objective truth (Gao & Zhang, 2022). Through these ontological and epistemological shifts, autoethnography not only addresses the crisis of representation in traditional ethnography but also opens up more reflective and creative spaces in academic research and writing, gaining increasing application in recent years. However, this research method also comes with various controversies and challenges that require further exploration and clarification.

This study will explore the possibilities, controversies, and potential pitfalls of autoethnography. First, it will analyze the value and potential of autoethnography as a research and writing method, clarifying its unique role in academic research. Second, it will examine the academic controversies sparked by autoethnography, highlighting the challenges and limitations it faces in practice. Finally, it will delve into the potential pitfalls of autoethnography, particularly the biases and ethical issues that may arise from the intertwining of personal experience and social-cultural constructions. Through these analyses, the study aims to provide comprehensive and in-depth theoretical support and practical guidance for the application of autoethnography.

This study is a qualitative inquiry aimed at conducting a profound critical analysis of the "autoethnography" paradigm within postmodern research. The core focus of this study lies in emphasizing qualitative reflection and analytical inquiry, systematically reviewing the historical background, theoretical foundations, and the controversies and challenges encountered in the practical application of autoethnography. The researcher not only delves into the uniqueness of autoethnography as a research method but also further examines its potential and limitations within academic writing. This study specifically addresses the ethical dilemmas and moral concerns raised by autoethnography, particularly the biases and subjectivity that may arise during the researcher’s self-narrative process. By critically evaluating this research method, the study aims to provide a more theoretical and in-depth reflective framework for the practical application of autoethnography, while also offering a reflective structure and operational guidelines for future academic practices involving autoethnographic research.

The study highlights the unique academic value of autoethnography in revealing everyday experiences and insider knowledge, addressing cultural blind spots and local misinterpretations, and empowering marginalized groups to express themselves. Firstly, by shifting from "other-representation" to "self-representation," autoethnography acknowledges and emphasizes the value of individual self-narrative and reflection, offering readers access to experiences and knowledge that are typically difficult for external observers to reach. Secondly, the intertwining of the roles of observer and observed enables researchers to critically reflect on the interaction between their own experiences and culture, thus avoiding cultural blind spots and misinterpretations of "local concepts" that may arise in traditional research methods. In this sense, autoethnography holds a significant advantage when applying Geertz’s "thick description" method. Furthermore, autoethnography granting marginalized groups greater discursive power to express their agency. As a research method that emphasizes the researcher’s subjective experience and emotional involvement, autoethnography faces controversies primarily regarding its legitimacy and academic credibility. On one hand, with the development of social sciences, especially the rise of poststructuralism, postcolonialism, and feminism, scholars have come to recognize that ethnographic research is not merely about "observation" and "documentation," but is a process of textual production filled with power dynamics, positionality, social context, and historical circumstances. In this context, autoethnography faces challenges to its "legitimacy," with debates over the researcher’s identity and power relationships. On the other hand, the shift in writing genres raises questions about the credibility of autoethnography as an academic endeavor, as "truths" understood and referenced by humans change accordingly（Ellis et al., 2011). Given the potential pitfalls associated with autoethnography, such as narrative hegemony, emotional dominance, and self-centeredness, researchers must carefully consider the ethical implications of self-narration, the tension between emotional expression and objective rationality, and the disconnect between personal perspective and collective experience.

Adams, T. E., Ellis, C., & Jones, S. H. (2017). Autoethnography.The international encyclopedia of communication research methods, 1-11. Bochner, A. P., & Ellis, C. (2006). Communication as autoethnography. Communication as...: Perspectives on theory, 13-21. Ellis, C. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.)/Sage. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: an overview.Historical social research/Historische sozialforschung, 273-290. Gao, Y., & Zhang, X. (2022). Zizhuan shi minzuzhi zai jiaoyu lingyu zhong de yingyong [The application of autobiographical ethnography in the field of education]. Guojia jiaoyu xingzheng xueyuan xuebao (Journal of the National Academy of Education Administration), (12), 87-95. Goldschmidt, W. (1977). Anthropology and the coming crisis: An autoethnographic appraisal.American Anthropologist, 293-308. Graeber, D. (2005). The auto-ethnography that can never be and the activist ethnography that might be. Hayano, D. M. (1979). Auto-ethnography: Paradigms, problems, and prospects. Human organization, 38(1), 99-104. Heider, K. G. (1975). What do people do? Dani auto-ethnography. Journal of Anthropological Research, 31, 3–17. Holman Jones, S. (2007). Autoethnography.The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. Sambrook, S., & Herrmann, A. F. (2018). Organisational autoethnography: possibilities, politics and pitfalls. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 7(3), 222-234. Shotter, J. (1987). The social construction of an'us': Problems of accountability and narratology. Sparkes, A. C. (2024). Autoethnography as an ethically contested terrain: some thinking points for consideration.Qualitative Research in Psychology,21(1), 107-139. Wall, S. (2008). Easier said than done: Writing an autoethnography.International journal of qualitative methods,7(1), 38-53. Winkler, I. (2018). Doing autoethnography: Facing challenges, taking choices, accepting responsibilities. Qualitative inquiry, 24(4), 236-247. Zhu, B. (2011). Fanxi yu chonggou: Lun “zhuti minzuzhi” [Reflection and reconstruction: On "subjective ethnography"]. Minzu yanjiu (Ethnic Studies), (03), 12-24+108.