In social anthropology and other human sciences, the practice of autoethnography is an established tool allowing to integrate the methodology of participant observation with a focus on an 'emic' perspective, i.e. a view from within the community. In dance anthropology and anthropological research centred on somatic practices in general, the benefit of drawing on researcher's own kinaesthetic experiences is especially evident. A dancer-researcher has access to a range of lived somatic experiences from within the body. Naturally, the subjective nature of individual experience may limit the generalisability of findings, meaning that autoethnography and related approaches such as applied phenomenology should complement rather than replace alternative qualitative and quantitative research methods such as classical participant observation, working with focus groups and, where applicable, experiments.

If the same question is asked for AOK History, it invites us to bridge the classical differentiation between a primary and a secondary source. Can a historian overview a process they have been part of? Or will they be too partisan for making a sound contribution to historical knowledge? Will the researcher have enough hindsight to identify the most significant aspects of the events researched? These and similar questions may signal that some historians are more cautious compared to social scientists in embracing a wider range of methodological approaches and are still generally aiming at a 'bird-eye view' of the past. The closest and most widespread approximation to 'auto-history' is probably a well-established genre of autobiography. Although a handful of memoirs are written by expert historians, most aren't. Nevertheless, autobiographies' and memoirs' purpose of presenting an author's unique perspective on the past events has been an important source of information for many generations of professional historians. Historians value different perspectives but seem to be cautious about relying on their own lived experiences for historical investigations. This observation may be a reflection of my own rather conservative approach to historical methodology rather than the current historiographical trends, however.

I have a question for your: What if due to a personal experience, someone decides to investigate and document a particular event, adding of course elements of own experience. In this case the own experience is the driver, the spark that ignites the interest, the investigation and the desire the document and spread the knowledge about a specific event.

Being more specific: a survivor from a concentration camp would like to document his own experiences and the experience of other like him, to let humanity know what happened, so that we do not repeat that mistake again.

What shapes my perspective as a knower?

“History is an enormous jigsaw puzzle with many missing pieces.”

I use this quote in my classes.

So who fills in the gaps? How were the pyramids really built? Why was Stonehenge constructed? We don't have definite answers to these questions, only hypotheses. And each hypothesis is shaped by different perspectives. This shows how history isn't just a collection of facts, but an ongoing process of interpretation.

The more perspectives we include, the more complete and nuanced our understanding becomes. History must be open to multiple viewpoints; excluding them leads to a limited and potentially biased view of the past.

Historians work much like chefs in a kitchen, blending ingredients from primary sources (like documents, artifacts, eyewitness accounts) and secondary sources (like books, articles, and analyses written after the fact). Together, these create a “dish” that represents a certain interpretation of history.

Sometimes, historical revisionism questions the widely accepted perspectives. While this can be controversial, it often enriches our understanding. For example, who should be blamed for the outbreak of World War II? The most accepted view, blames Hitler. But others argue that Britain and France, through their policy of appeasement, share responsibility for not stopping Nazi aggression earlier. This debate reflects the complexity of historical interpretation.

Ultimately, my perspective as a knower is shaped by the sources I encounter, the viewpoints I consider, and my willingness to question what I’ve been taught.

I wonder how that may work for a different AOK?

Regards,

Sergey

This question can be answered by usinfg a phrase, “The beauty lies in the eyes of admirer”. I might be using the phrase differently, it can be a flirty line, but it makes comeplete sense for this question. It is very much possible that some meaning can be hidden in the artists work.

During language and literature classes, I have seen students trying to find the reason even the author would never think of ever. This has increased as the thinking process of students have been changing, and becoming a little less empathatic. I am not trying to criticise students, but it is something I see in younger students.

Students were discussing Liza Donnely, and someone came up with an idea that felt bizzare at first, but was very appealing, and made sense.

Here we can use the article by Roland Barthes, “Death of the Author”, which states that the meaning of the text is not determined by the author, but by the reader’s interpretation.

Connecting it to history, I would teach answer it using the phrase, “History is written by Victors”. We can say that history is something passed down started orally, and then when there were fierce conquests, everyone wanted to remove the name of the loser from history in the name of revenge or torture. This can help us understand that history can be interpreted by analysis, and can be influenced by ethnicity, knowledge anmd more things. To explain and think about it, I will use the example of Alexander vs Puru (Porus).

How can it be that scientific knowledge changes over time?

Scientific knowledge changes over time because our tools, methods, and perspectives evolve. What we consider "true" today may be proven incomplete or incorrect tomorrow. A good example is how people believed in the geocentric model (Earth at the center of the universe), and now we know the heliocentric model is accurate.

This question shows that science is not staticit's dynamic and influenced by technology, observations, and even the questions scientists choose to ask. The scientist's perspective matters, too. Culture, funding, and world events can influence what is researched and how it is interpreted.

Now, applying the same question to another AOK: The Arts.

Knowledge also changes over time in the arts, but in a different way. It's more about shifting values and interpretation. For example, what was once considered controversial or "low" art may now be praised. Think of graffiti: once rejected, now it's exhibited in galleries.

However, the idea of "truth" in the arts is not the same as in science. In science, we test and try to prove something. In the arts, knowledge is more emotional, cultural, and open to multiple meanings. So, the reason knowledge changes is not about new data but about how people see or feel about it.