Adapting Collaborative Autoethnography for Community-Based Participatory Action Research: Methodological Insights from Practice

Background and Purpose: Collaborative autoethnography (CAE) is an established qualitative approach in which multiple researchers generate and analyze personal narratives to illuminate social phenomenon (Chang et al., 2013). CAE has evolved to emphasize flexibility for methodological innovation to address complexities inherent to collaborative inquiry (Hernandez et al., 2017). However, existing CAE scholarship has largely been developed with academically trained co-researchers and offers limited guidance for implementation within community-based participatory action research (CBPAR) contexts involving non-academic partners. This gap is salient in social work, where CBPAR is increasingly used to center community voice, redistribute power in knowledge production, and enhance relevance for policy and practice. As limited methodological guidance exists, questions remain regarding how to navigate variability in participation, support equitable power sharing, and maintain CAE’s analytic rigor while upholding CBPAR principles. We address this gap by examining how CAE can be adapted for CBPAR contexts, drawing on insights from a community-engaged CAE project. In doing so, we extend CAE as a method for more inclusive, participatory, and practice-relevant knowledge production.

Methods: This study utilized a structured, reflexive analytic process applied to our experience implementing a community-engaged CAE project that brought together researchers, practitioners, and community leaders to reimagine youth incarceration through abolitionist thinking. As the project unfolded, we observed instances where conventional CAE practices were misaligned with the needs, capacities, and priorities of our CBPAR context. As we adapted CAE in real time to facilitate project feasibility, two team members initiated structured reflection and dialogue on methodological decisions. We developed analytic notes documenting misalignments and engaged in regular discussions comparing CAE tenets and CBPAR principles to identify areas of tension and adaptation. These were categorized by type—participation structures, data generation processes, analytic processes, ethical/relational practices—to support applicability for future research.

Results: We identified key tensions between CAE tenets and our project’s CBPAR context, including assumptions of role symmetry versus variable participation, reliance on independent written narratives versus the need for accessible andflexible modes of expression, emphasis on emergent, dialogic analysis versus the need for structured facilitation of analysis, and implicit versus explicit approaches to power sharing and ethical responsibility. These tensions prompted adaptations across four domains: (1) participation structures, including differentiated roles, flexible engagement formats, and bounded timelines to support feasibility; (2) data generation processes incorporating multimodal and facilitated approaches; (3) analytic processes combining dialogic engagement with structured coding and synthesis; and (4) ethical and relational practices emphasizing community accountability, negotiated power, and inclusivity.

Conclusions and Implications: CAE and CBPAR offer complementary strengths for centering lived experience, amplifying community voice, and engaging communities in knowledge production—priorities central to social work. However, CBPAR contexts can complicate the application of traditional CAE approaches. We offer methodological adaptations to extend CAE for CBPAR contexts across areas of participation, data generation, and analysis, which center community expertise while maintaining rigor. This approach advances more equitable knowledge production, challenges epistemic oppression by positioning community members’ lived experience as legitimate knowledge, and ensures research holds utility for policy and practice.