Are You an Auto, an Ethno or a Graphy?

"Autoethnographers vary in their emphasis on the research process (graphy), on culture (ethnos) and on self (auto)" (740). I would say I am a auto. I have a background in fiction and am quite self-interested.

What is unstated in this semantic breakdown of what were all doing here, is that a good autoethnography is all three. My process will be a little dab of each. I will do my best to give a frank description of my personal experiences in SL, use traditional ethnography methods, including conventional qualitative interview (in this case more like reflection) techniques and focus on the cultural forces of SL. My excuse for taking an unscientific approach (even for the already questionably scientific genre) could be this, also from the article:

"The question is not "Does my story reflect the past accurately?"… "What are the consequences my story produces? What kind of person does it shape me into? What new possibilities does it shape me into? What new possibilities does it introduce for living my life?"

Also the references to Kuhn defending the process....

Following the process of a genuinely interested researcher, with the most sincere possible of human experiences fueling the interest, from idea to IRB, also provides good framework, and an interesting story to boot. Ellis and Bochner have equal part instructional essay and an ethnography of sorts!