Translation Studies increasingly relies on first-person materials, yet their methodological status frequently remains implicit. Terms such as reflection, diary, memoir, practitioner narrative, and autoethnography are used inconsistently, making it difficult to compare studies or assess their evidentiary claims. This article addresses that gap by proposing a field-sensitive conceptualization of translation autoethnography and by reconsidering the canonical analytic–evocative distinction in light of translator-mediated subjectivity. Building on autobiographical, reflective, and practice-based research in translation and interpreting, it develops a multi-axial typology organized around three intersecting dimensions: form and function, embodiment and performance, and number of voices and collaboration format. The article argues that first-person translation research cannot be adequately captured by binary classifications alone, because translational subjectivity is mediated, relational, embodied, and commonly collaborative. The proposed model offers a framework for positioning and comparing diverse autoethnographic studies, clarifying what kinds of first-person evidence they draw on and what kinds of claims they can support. It thus contributes to more explicit, cumulative, and reflexive methodological discussion in Translator Studies. This record contains a preprint version of the article intended for publication in Tradition and Innovation in Translation Studies Research XIV: Mapping Voices, Texts and Contexts (Nitra: Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra).
Pavlo Shopin (Wed,) studied this question.