Autoethnography can be an appropriate method for researching complex emotional experiences. However, the highly self-reflexive processes involved in mining personal data are subject to a set of cultural feeling and display rules, which obscure and interfere with emotional engagement. To illustrate this, we present one author’s account of using autoethnography to research traumatic bereavement. We critically revisit three myths about the method: one negative (autoethnography is narcissistically self-indulgent) and two positive (autoethnographic techniques are therapeutic and autoethnographic writing is authentic). Observing some parallels between topic and method, we suggest that both are complicated and non-linear, following convoluted paths. Autoethnographic tales may defy the social rules of verbal tellability, failing to reveal personal insights or offer moral lessons. We conclude that, while we can admire the autoethnographic endeavour towards ‘heartfelt’ scholarship, this should be tempered by a cautiousness about the costs of digging deep.

自主民族志可以成为研究复杂情感体验的合适方法。然而，挖掘个人数据所涉及的高度自我反思的过程受制于一套文化感受和显示规则，这些规则模糊并干扰了情感参与。为了说明这一点，我们展示了一位作者关于使用自我民族志研究创伤性丧亲之痛的描述。我们批判性地重新审视了关于该方法的三个神话：一个否定的（自我民族志是自恋的自我放纵）和两个积极的（自我民族志技术是治疗性的，而自我民族志写作是真实的）。观察主题和方法之间的一些相似之处，我们建议两者都是复杂和非线性的，遵循复杂的路径。民族志故事可能会违反语言可分辨性的社会规则，未能揭示个人见解或提供道德教训。我们得出的结论是，虽然我们可以钦佩自我民族志对“衷心”学术的努力，但这应该通过对深入挖掘成本的谨慎来缓和。