I agree with Kikki: great start – and what rich and great debate you have sparked by sharing your draft!
1. As narrative self-representations, the auto-ethnographic authors you are going to interview are assumed to have focused on ‘intended’ audiences’ and ‘intentions’ they had for their readers. I think that asking them also how their initial reason for using auto-ethnography may have changed or evolved in due course, not assuming that decisions made at the beginning of the project remained unaffected by the researcher’s experiences and constant ‘gazing’ at his or her ‘self’, might prove valuable.
2. As a method, auto-ethnography does enable researchers to reconcile voices they would be forced to handle in separate ways if they resorted to other methods. In this sense, the artificial boundaries of ‘self’ and ‘other’ – as interviewer/observer and interviewee/participant for instance – become much more blurred.
3. Assuming that reflexivity has resulted in those authors being aware of this, the question to what extent they had made use of the fact that they are imposing reflections and interpretations on their audiences might be one of the challenging aspects which could potentially open up a debate around power, and, in turn, feed into your personal learning outcomes/objectives.
4. In terms of data analysis, I thought that taking a grounded theory approach when coding might gain more validity by help of triangulation – so not just asking interviewees to review the transcripts but also the coding. This in turn might also contribute to your learning objectives, focusing on power and equality issues in research based on social constructivist notions.