Home > HCAS > HCAS_PUBS > HCAS_JOURNALS > TQR Home > TQR > Vol. 27 > No. 4 (2022)
The purpose of this paper is to unpack and critique different forms of solipsism and whether its impacts on autoethnographic inquiry are overly self-referential. This paper offers thoughts on Western and Eastern perspectives on the self. It is argued that autoethnography as a genre and method of inquiry confronts challenges and tensions in terms of epistemology, methodology, and ethical issues, particularly the issues of solipsism as a major challenge. It is often critiqued that autoethnographers are not able to establish a clear theoretical standpoint and the autobiographic texts lack convincing arguments and scholarly rigor. In the meantime, it is not pragmatic to undermine the intent of autoethnographic inquiry which provides a space for culturally and politically relevant experience and embodiment. To this end, this paper explores the nuances of solipsism, theoretical and definitional gaps, and ways to critically deal with this issue while pursuing autoethnographic inquiry incorporating Western and Eastern perspectives of the self.
autoethnography, critical self-reflection, moral relativism, solipsism, subjectivity
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.
Recommended APA Citation
Panta, C. N., & Luitel, B. C. (2022). Solipsism as a Challenge of Doing Autoethnographic Inquiry. The Qualitative Report, 27(4), 1058-1067. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5365
Educational Leadership Commons, Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies Commons, Social Statistics Commons