Thank you for your insightful response! I appreciate the historical perspective and the challenge you pose regarding the interplay between automatic learning (or operant conditioning) and critical thinking. You raise an important point about how deeply ingrained behaviors—like smoking—can be tied to automatic processes that are resistant to change through critical reflection.

However, I would argue that while the shift from rote learning to critical thinking is indeed difficult, it is not necessarily a zero-sum game where the presence of one eliminates the other entirely. In many educational contexts, especially in cultures that emphasize respect for authority, there is space to gradually introduce critical thinking without completely dismantling the structures of automatic or rote learning. For example, Paulo Freire’s concept of conscientização (consciousness raising) highlights how individuals can start questioning established norms within the confines of existing systems, thereby initiating a gradual shift towards critical awareness.

Autoethnography offers a unique lens to explore these dynamics. By situating the self within the broader cultural context, it reveals the psychological tension between learned behavior and the impulse to question and reflect. From my own experiences, as detailed in my autoethnography, I found that the process of critical engagement did not fully negate my respect for authority but created a duality—a space where I could adapt to my cultural surroundings while still fostering personal critical growth.

The analogy you draw with smoking is compelling. But perhaps in educational settings, we can envision an in-between stage where learners are conditioned to ask questions, albeit within a framework that still respects authority. This could be a way to introduce critical thinking gradually, allowing operant conditioning and critical thought to coexist temporarily before a full transition happens. Do you see a possibility for this type of hybrid approach?

Finally, I agree with your point on ethnography and anthropology acknowledging humans as active agents with psychological identities. Autoethnography, in particular, emphasizes this, as it interweaves personal psychological narratives with cultural and societal observations, providing a platform for a deeper understanding of how these factors interact.

I would love to hear more of your thoughts on how autoethnography can contribute to understanding these cultural conflicts and how it can serve as a tool for fostering critical reflection within structured learning environments.

Has it become too risky to undertake autoethnographies in higher education?

Autoethnographic accounts can be powerful indictments of unjust social and organisational structures in higher education. This research method may also expose researchers to legal repercussions...

"Autoethnography is a qualitative research method that involves sharing your own story, connecting personal experiences to social and cultural phenomena, often to highlight or challenge norms. In higher education, it can be a powerful tool for exposing injustices and limitations from the perspective of those experiencing them...

Whistleblowers and marginalised voices in higher education use autoethnography to raise awareness of serious issues that may implicate management. They can also openly confront workplace bullying, the demands placed on Women of Colour who are also academic mothers, and the precarity of sessional employment, among many other pertinent issues.

Acknowledging the potential risks of speaking up can help individuals to manage them, but it may also silence marginalised voices, enabling unjust practices to continue without criticism. We need laws and policies in place across contexts that genuinely protect the vulnerable so that autoethnography and other measures can be used to speak up about issues in higher education without fear of unjust reprisal..."

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/11/14/has-it-become-too-risky-to-undertake-autoethnographies-in-higher-education/

Elizabeth De-Ben Rockson

1) Could it? It's generally hard to run a meaningful study with sample of one. Even if you find something intriguing, you have no way of telling whether that what you observed is not a complete fluke.

2) Maybe you know where to look, but I really did see so far much impostor syndrome all over academia. I'm rather used to idea that those who incorrectly grade their skills, tend generally to overestimate them. From cases that I can talk about - I regularly review articles all over the world where authors clearly did not bother to read prior works and their subsequent reasoning suffers because of that. (It's exact opposite error of someone who is afraid of being exposed as non-expert)

3) Some variant of Socratic method? I mean feeding your students with key chunks of information and by questioning slowly guiding them towards the right answer?

Ljubomir Jacić

1) "Autoethnographic accounts can be powerful indictments"

Interestingly, in historiography memoirs are usually considered as not especially credible primary source, if anything a few historic myth were later demonstrated to be created by over reliance of this type of heavily personalized accounts presenting their authors in possibly positive light.

2) "This research method may also expose researchers to legal repercussions..." As slander? I'd say that if there is any risk of writing being that bad and that much distorting facts that could reach rather high bar of being actionable as a slander, then we're generally not talking about especially valuable academic writing, but rather something opposite.