This article explores my experiences using two frameworks to guide the design, implementation and reporting of an autoethnography. I used Hughes, Pennington, and Makris’ (2012) framework for translating autoethnography to the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Standards for reporting empirical research to inform the structure, design, and process for the autoethnography, and Milner’s (2007) framework for researchers to examine seen, unseen, and unforeseen dangers to guide my reflection, support reflexivity, and examine the development of a dynamic positionality. In this article, I illustrate how using these frameworks enhanced the rigor and reflexivity of my autoethnographic research.


autoethnography, reflexivity, qualitative research, process

Author Bio(s)

AnnMarie Dull is a doctoral student in Curriculum and Instruction at St. John’s University, focusing on critical pedagogical teaching practices in K-12 classrooms. A dedicated district administrator, AnnMarie is a champion of public education, devoting her research to examining practical applications of transformative educational theories. Please direct correspondence to annmarie.dull19@my.stjohns.edu.

Publication Date


Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.





To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.