Narrative Inquiry
In chapter four of Narrative Inquiry, authors Jean Clandinin and Michael Connelly provide us with their answer to the question What do narrative inquires do? In doing so, they offer a set of terms, which have been developed from Dewey’s theory of experience. Clendinin & Connelly describe the terms as “personal and social (interaction); past, present, and future (continuity); combined with the notion of place (situation)…[which] create a metaphorical three-dimensional narrative inquiry space”(p. 50).
As Clandinin and Connelly explain that “to experience and experience—that is, to do research into an experience—is to experience it simultaneously in the four directions of any inquiry: inward and outward, backward and forward (p. 50), I am reminded of what I’ve learned in my education class about the theory of Constructivism. This philosophy of learning, which is based on the theory that in order for students to construct their own meaning of the world and connect to what they are learning, they must reflect back on their own personal experiences, is similar to what narrative inquires do as they experience the four directions of inquiry. Just like each student responds differently to information as a result of their personal experiences, each narrative inquirer responds differently to their research, as a result of their personal experiences. It is both the narrative inquirers experiences in relation to themselves as well as to others which influences how they perceive and connect to their work, and Clandinin and Connelly believe that “as narrative inquirers we work within the space not only with our participants but also with ourselves” (p. 61).
Situating Narrative Inquiry
In Situating Narrative Inquiry, author Jean Clandinin discusses “the movement to narrative inquiry, showing how, through a series of narrative turns, there are key moves toward narrative inquiry. The four turns are a change in the relationship between the researcher and the researched; a move from the use of number toward the use of words as data; a change from a focus on the general and universal toward the local and specific; and a widening in acceptance of alternative epistemologies or ways of knowing” (p. 1). Although there is a large possibility that I could be completely wrong about all of this, it is to my understanding that it is these specific turns toward narrative inquiry which show us that although some may argue that the use of narrative is not appropriate in all areas of research, because it is thought of as being more subjective than objective, which raises questions of its validity, Clandinin believes that narrative can be used as a way of strengthening one’s research.
One example of where some would question the reliability of narrative in research is when narrative inquirers shift from using numbers toward using words as data. While Clandinin states that some “researchers, in a sense, turn back from narrative inquiry because they desire to create ‘grand theories’ in the human sciences, and they embrace the efficiency that numbers provide for convincing other social scientists of the fundamental accuracy and reliability of their findings” (p.16), there are many narrative inquirers who believe that the use of numbers does not always accurately represent the results of their research. I was initially surprised to read this because I always thought of numbers as being very concrete when it comes to scientific data. It was interesting to learn that, according to Clandinin, “Sometimes narrative inquirers begin to turn away from numbers because they become suspicious of their trustworthiness in providing an authentic research account” (p. 20). I guess the way that I always saw it was that numbers never lie, which clearly isn’t how Clandinin sees it. Whenever I thought of research, I thought of numbers, statistics, and formulas being the most accurate and honest way of explaining data, so I never really considered that researchers would be the ones to doubt their reliability. I didn’t really think there was a such thing as too concrete when it came to research, but apparently there is. It’s funny because I always hated filling out surveys because they leave no room for explanation, and sometimes things just have to be explained in words. Not everything can be answered with just a yes or no, or never, sometimes, always. Though life would be much simpler if everything was black and white, it would also make things a lot more boring, which is why I can understand exactly where Clandinin is coming from.
In chapter four of Narrative Inquiry, authors Jean Clandinin and Michael Connelly provide us with their answer to the question What do narrative inquires do? In doing so, they offer a set of terms, which have been developed from Dewey’s theory of experience. Clendinin & Connelly describe the terms as “personal and social (interaction); past, present, and future (continuity); combined with the notion of place (situation)…[which] create a metaphorical three-dimensional narrative inquiry space”(p. 50).
As Clandinin and Connelly explain that “to experience and experience—that is, to do research into an experience—is to experience it simultaneously in the four directions of any inquiry: inward and outward, backward and forward (p. 50), I am reminded of what I’ve learned in my education class about the theory of Constructivism. This philosophy of learning, which is based on the theory that in order for students to construct their own meaning of the world and connect to what they are learning, they must reflect back on their own personal experiences, is similar to what narrative inquires do as they experience the four directions of inquiry. Just like each student responds differently to information as a result of their personal experiences, each narrative inquirer responds differently to their research, as a result of their personal experiences. It is both the narrative inquirers experiences in relation to themselves as well as to others which influences how they perceive and connect to their work, and Clandinin and Connelly believe that “as narrative inquirers we work within the space not only with our participants but also with ourselves” (p. 61).
Situating Narrative Inquiry
In Situating Narrative Inquiry, author Jean Clandinin discusses “the movement to narrative inquiry, showing how, through a series of narrative turns, there are key moves toward narrative inquiry. The four turns are a change in the relationship between the researcher and the researched; a move from the use of number toward the use of words as data; a change from a focus on the general and universal toward the local and specific; and a widening in acceptance of alternative epistemologies or ways of knowing” (p. 1). Although there is a large possibility that I could be completely wrong about all of this, it is to my understanding that it is these specific turns toward narrative inquiry which show us that although some may argue that the use of narrative is not appropriate in all areas of research, because it is thought of as being more subjective than objective, which raises questions of its validity, Clandinin believes that narrative can be used as a way of strengthening one’s research.
One example of where some would question the reliability of narrative in research is when narrative inquirers shift from using numbers toward using words as data. While Clandinin states that some “researchers, in a sense, turn back from narrative inquiry because they desire to create ‘grand theories’ in the human sciences, and they embrace the efficiency that numbers provide for convincing other social scientists of the fundamental accuracy and reliability of their findings” (p.16), there are many narrative inquirers who believe that the use of numbers does not always accurately represent the results of their research. I was initially surprised to read this because I always thought of numbers as being very concrete when it comes to scientific data. It was interesting to learn that, according to Clandinin, “Sometimes narrative inquirers begin to turn away from numbers because they become suspicious of their trustworthiness in providing an authentic research account” (p. 20). I guess the way that I always saw it was that numbers never lie, which clearly isn’t how Clandinin sees it. Whenever I thought of research, I thought of numbers, statistics, and formulas being the most accurate and honest way of explaining data, so I never really considered that researchers would be the ones to doubt their reliability. I didn’t really think there was a such thing as too concrete when it came to research, but apparently there is. It’s funny because I always hated filling out surveys because they leave no room for explanation, and sometimes things just have to be explained in words. Not everything can be answered with just a yes or no, or never, sometimes, always. Though life would be much simpler if everything was black and white, it would also make things a lot more boring, which is why I can understand exactly where Clandinin is coming from.
RSS Feed