Autoethnography in Nursing Education: An Integrative Review of Methodological Variants, Quality Practices, and Ethical Considerations (2010-2025).

IF 3 Q1 NURSING
Global Qualitative Nursing Research Pub Date : 2026-05-18 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23333936261450825
Kechi C Iheduru-Anderson, Valeria A Ramdin, Christiana O Akanegbu, Ednah Madu, Julia U Ugorji, Vanessa A Johnson, Nisha Mathews, Karen E Alexander, Benita N Chatmon, Danielle McCamey, Agnes T Deleawe
{"title":"Autoethnography in Nursing Education: An Integrative Review of Methodological Variants, Quality Practices, and Ethical Considerations (2010-2025).","authors":"Kechi C Iheduru-Anderson, Valeria A Ramdin, Christiana O Akanegbu, Ednah Madu, Julia U Ugorji, Vanessa A Johnson, Nisha Mathews, Karen E Alexander, Benita N Chatmon, Danielle McCamey, Agnes T Deleawe","doi":"10.1177/23333936261450825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Autoethnography is increasingly used in nursing education research to examine the relational, embodied, and often hidden dimensions of teaching, learning, and professional socialization. Yet uneven use of variant-sensitive approaches, quality frameworks, and ethics reporting suggests continuing methodological inconsistency. We conducted an integrative review of autoethnographic nursing education literature published between 2010 and 2025, examining five dimensions: (1) variant definitions and operationalization, (2) quality appraisal frameworks, (3) reflexivity and positionality practices, (4) credibility strategies, and (5) ethical procedures, including attention to implicated others. Systematic searches of CINAHL, MEDLINE, ERIC, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science yielded 23 eligible studies. Collaborative autoethnography predominated (56%), and several studies, especially those examining the experiences of racially minoritized faculty, explicitly positioned autoethnography as a decolonizing approach and demonstrated stronger reported reflexive practices. Reflexivity, as represented in published manuscripts, ranged from integrated positionality analyses that informed analytic decisions to brief, largely token acknowledgment. Findings suggest that nursing education scholarship may benefit from a fit-for-variant approach to appraisal and clearer field expectations for relational ethics reporting, especially given power differentials when faculty write about students, colleagues, and institutions. More explicit linking of standpoint to analysis may advance methodological transparency and interpretive credibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":45940,"journal":{"name":"Global Qualitative Nursing Research","volume":"13 ","pages":"23333936261450825"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13187389/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Qualitative Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23333936261450825","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Autoethnography is increasingly used in nursing education research to examine the relational, embodied, and often hidden dimensions of teaching, learning, and professional socialization. Yet uneven use of variant-sensitive approaches, quality frameworks, and ethics reporting suggests continuing methodological inconsistency. We conducted an integrative review of autoethnographic nursing education literature published between 2010 and 2025, examining five dimensions: (1) variant definitions and operationalization, (2) quality appraisal frameworks, (3) reflexivity and positionality practices, (4) credibility strategies, and (5) ethical procedures, including attention to implicated others. Systematic searches of CINAHL, MEDLINE, ERIC, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science yielded 23 eligible studies. Collaborative autoethnography predominated (56%), and several studies, especially those examining the experiences of racially minoritized faculty, explicitly positioned autoethnography as a decolonizing approach and demonstrated stronger reported reflexive practices. Reflexivity, as represented in published manuscripts, ranged from integrated positionality analyses that informed analytic decisions to brief, largely token acknowledgment. Findings suggest that nursing education scholarship may benefit from a fit-for-variant approach to appraisal and clearer field expectations for relational ethics reporting, especially given power differentials when faculty write about students, colleagues, and institutions. More explicit linking of standpoint to analysis may advance methodological transparency and interpretive credibility.

护理教育中的自我民族志:方法变体、质量实践和伦理考虑的综合回顾(2010-2025)。
自我民族志越来越多地用于护理教育研究,以检查教学,学习和专业社会化的关系,体现和往往隐藏的维度。然而,对变量敏感的方法、质量框架和伦理报告的不平衡使用表明,方法上的不一致仍在继续。我们对2010年至2025年间发表的自体民族志护理教育文献进行了综合回顾,考察了五个维度:(1)变体定义和操作化,(2)质量评估框架,(3)反思性和定位性实践,(4)可信度策略,以及(5)伦理程序,包括对涉及他人的关注。对CINAHL、MEDLINE、ERIC、Scopus、ScienceDirect和Web of Science进行系统检索,得到23项符合条件的研究。协作性的自我民族志占主导地位(56%),一些研究,特别是那些研究少数种族教师经历的研究,明确地将自我民族志定位为一种去殖民化的方法,并展示了更强的反射性实践。反身性在已发表的手稿中有所体现,其范围从为分析决策提供信息的综合位置性分析到简短的、主要是象征性的承认。研究结果表明,护理教育奖学金可能受益于一种适合不同的评估方法和对关系伦理报告的更清晰的领域期望,特别是考虑到教师在写学生、同事和机构时的权力差异。更明确地将观点与分析联系起来,可以提高方法的透明度和解释的可信度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.90%
发文量
41
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Qualitative Nursing Research (GQNR) is a ground breaking, international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal focusing on qualitative research in fields relevant to nursing and other health professionals world-wide. The journal specializes in topics related to nursing practice, responses to health and illness, health promotion, and health care delivery. GQNR will publish research articles using qualitative methods and qualitatively-driven mixed-method designs as well as meta-syntheses and articles focused on methodological development. Special sections include Ethics, Methodological Development, Advancing Theory/Metasynthesis, Establishing Evidence, and Application to Practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书