Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • A Framework For Narrative Research Proposals in Psychology Josselsson y Lieblich PDF

    Uploaded by

    Melissa Reyes Escobedo
    46 views18 pages

    Original Title

    A-framework-for-narrative-research-proposals-in-psychology-Josselsson-y-Lieblich.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    46 views18 pages

    A Framework For Narrative Research Proposals in Psychology Josselsson y Lieblich PDF

    Uploaded by

    Melissa Reyes Escobedo

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 18
    | Up Oh: ad Personal Copyright © 2003 by the American Psichological Association. All rights reserved, Except as permitted urider che United Seates Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced ot distributed in any form of by any means, cx stored in & Gatabase or retteval sytem, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Fine Prine August 2002 ‘Sceond Prinsing Dacember 2005 Published by ‘American Psychological Association Washington, DC 20002 wow apaor To order In the UK, Europe, Africa, nd the Middle APA Onder Department East, copies may be ordered from P.O. Box 92984 American Psychological Awociation Washingron, DC 20900-2084 3 Henneta Suet Tel: (800) 374 Covent Garden, Lerdon Direct: (202 Fax: (202) 336-5502 ‘TDD/TTY. (202) 336-6123 Online: www. apa.orefbooks! Email: order@aps.org WCE SLU England ‘Typeset in Goudy by Workl Composition Services nc. Scrling, VA Printer: Data Reproductions, Auburn Hills, Ml Cover designer: Naylor Design, Washington, DC Project Manager: Debbie Hardin, Carlsbad, CA. ‘The opinions and statements are the responsibility of the authors, and such opinions and statements do not necessarily represent the policies of the American Psychological AAsociation, Lisrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jp close and personal: the reaching and learning of narrative research / edited by Rathellen Josselson, Amia Lieblich, Dan P. McAdeme. ecm. — (The narrative uly of lives) Includes bibliogrphical references and index. ISBN 1-55798.040.0 (all paper) L. Narration (Rhetoric) 2. Autobiography. 1. Joweson, Ruthellen. Ul, Lieblich, ‘Armia, 1939 Ill. McAdams, Dan PIV. Series PN2I2.U68 2002 808-dc21 2002067365 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Dats ACIP record is available from the Bresh Library ined in the United Sims of America A FRAMEWORK FOR NARRATIVE RESEARCH PROPOSALS IN PSYCHOLOGY RUTHELLEN JOSSELSON AND AMIA LIEBLICH “The most promising words ever written on the maps of human Knowledge are terra incagnita—unknown territory.” Daniel J. Boorstin, The Discoverers (1985, p. xvi) For the last 10 years we have been reaching narrative studies in various frameworks in academia. As more and more students wished to write master's and doctoral theses using narrative approaches, we became aware that the cold pattems of writing research proposals were unsuitable for this purpose and often created havoc with their research plans. The present chapter attempts to clarify our position in confronting these problems. Tn narrative, as opposed to paradigmatic, modes of thought (Bruner, 1985), the aim is to create interpreted description of the rich and multi- layered meanings of historical and personal events. The scarch is for truths ‘unique in their particularity, grounded in firsthand experience, in order to extend and enhance conceptualization andlor to sensitize practitioners to “Fhe ates wah wo thank de allowing people fer shel eatin to and helps comments on ‘ate daft of this paper—an for mdicating that cher would make we ofthis wa thet ‘Stodenes Michoe! Bamberg, Clark University: Eyal Ber- Ar Hebrew Univeraty of Jerasems Andra ‘Cole, Univesity of Torta, Hanoeh Farm, Ben Gurion Univeniy: Hal Gotevaat, University of Dimeseta, Katherme Randa, Peking Gradua Iaiat; Geonpe Roser, Univerty of ‘Michigan Pl C. Rosentlat, University of Minnesota "Another problem we encounter is tat dents who have never taken a clas in qualitative rama tnir wade propo (bseaie there ae Net to many ofthese in academic elev that they ca uly to do such reach for a mate’ or doteral prope, ir seems tobe 10 nturive,or—aecordng t thet prcepton—clve wo thet clinial prychalogy Eackground 259 their occurrence. The emphasis is on content and its meanings, which are sometimes revealed in structural forms. Thete is no prescribed ingallible means for unearthing and creating meanings. The qualitative/nacrative? researcher eschews methodolatry in favor of doing what is necessary to capture the lived experience of people in terms oftheir own meaning-making The pursuit of interesting and interpretable content takes precedence over rigid adherence to prescribed rules of procedure. Without detailed stories drawn in some way from participants, stories that reveal the way in which people view and understand their lives, narrative study is impossible. But the fact that this is research and not journalism means that some scholarly or conceptual context either frames or will frame the final report In chat narrative research is a voyage of discovery—a discovery of ‘meanings that both constitute the individual participant and are co- constructed in the research process—rescarchers cannot know at the outset what they will find. How, therefore, does one write a proposal about the tesearch one intends to da? In most psychology graduate programs, the structure of thesis or disser- tation proposals is dictated by the paradigm of quantitative, positivistic research. Hypotheses to be tested are set out and located within the research tradition or theory from which chey emerge. Methods are employed to test the defined hypotheses. Statistical analyses that will be conducted are specified. Faculty committees authorized to supervise the research then argue ‘among themselves and with the students about whether the hypotheses are intelligent, whether the methods are appropriate, whether the statistical procedures are apt. They also seck to evaluate what is innovative about the study, relative to the knowledge in the area. On a structural level, these traditional proposals are built like regular research papers, using the chapters of Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion. Students who wish to work with qualitative or narrative methods, though, find themselves trying to fit chemselves into a Procrustean bed. They have no hypotheses—only questions or intetesting people to explore. ‘They have some idea whom they hope to interview and how they intend to begin their inquiry, usually with a rough interview format. But, trying to work within the standard proposal format, they get stuck—stuck at many ppoints, but most formidably when they try co specify how many people they will study and how they will analyze their data. In place of che traditional ‘methods section, which they cannot quite reshape their initally envisioned Procedure to fit, they usually retreat to presenting some exegesis on the Philosophy of hermeneutic or phenomenological research or writing a com- Aihcagh sane wholun dsinguishcualtanve from narntive research, we find this unnecesary fo: the present chapter. Sufice iw sa that “qunitative” inches + wider seoe of reer appresches, 22.-chereaons, wheres “carve” wally fr to work done with vettal eceunts ew hari: 260 _JOSSELSON AND LIEBLICH pendium on grounded theory. And the supervising faculty committee still hhas litte idea of what they realy intend to try to find out, if they are capable of undertaking the work, finishing it, oe whether the final project is likely to be an embarrassinent to all. In our experience, committee meetings often then degenerate into battles about “how many” participants the student needs to have, whether all the research terms ate well-specified in advance; of why a particular subgroup has been chosen as an object of study and not another. Or students are taken to task for not being clear enough on the conceptual framework within which they will ry to understand their data, how they are going to conduct their “analysis’—or for being too wedded to particular theory such that they may “force” their data into a preexist- ing shape. Nor can we adopt forms from the humanities. Although the thinking and analytic proceses in the humanities are closer co those of narrative research, students in literature and history already have the materials they will work with and know at the outset the themes that are present that they plan to highlight, explore, and discuss. We offer this chapter, then, as an effort ro design a format for qualita tiveinarrative research proposals in psychology, one that will beter suit the nature of this work? We hope, in doing this, to make life a bie smoother for both students and supervising committees. What are the components that students must offer at the outset to satisfy their supervisors that they ‘are competent to carry out the work, to describe what the work will be. and to argue that the work is potentially significant? ‘Qualitative research based on analysis of narrative material is inher cently inductive. The work takes place in hermeneutic circles, where new Teacnings are built as background knowledge expands. Thus, a researcher may begin at a certain point only to leam, as a result of the research, thar the question she or he had so carefully frat loses meaning in the context of the experience of the participants and has to be reshaped to fit te local circumstances. To this extent, qualitative analysis can be considered a craft, because “methods that are successful are of necessity innovative and are ‘not usually “ofl-the-shelf'* (Liberman, 1999, p. 47). In our work, we have dropped the term “methodology,” which carries deep connotations of the traditional research paradigm, and prefer to speak in terms of modes of inquiry. ‘As with any voyage of discovery to an unknown place, a narrative research plan must argue for the importance of the journey in the context “in preparation or tis chape, we consulted works that dis the preperation of diwertations in cher elds tht use qualative metho sch as feldwor or natural insiy (Ely, poral {eommunicabon: Marhall & Boyd, 1993, Sundebwah, Davie & Has, 1998), But we have chores fo fous this chaper on the ws of irterwew mates since thes ate most chen wed for qakarne ‘Suites psyeology NARRATIVE RESEARCH PROPOSALS 261 of prior knowledge, must state clearly what sort of knowledge is sought, and must chart a plan for how one hopes to carry out the exploration, including the tools that will be carried to aid the work, how the voyage will be documented, and how it will later be understood and discussed. In addition, discoverers must offer some discussion of their position with regard to the voyage—how they intend to undertake it and to understand it. Finally, would-be discoverers must state what they hope this new knowledge will contribute in a scientific, theoretical, scholarly, or programmatic context. In more formal language, these requirements would be expressed as state- ments about the Background of the study Research question and its significance Plan of inquiry Approach to analysis . Significance of the findings 6. Reflexive statement about the position of the researcher in relation to the work Because narrative studies encourage creativity and flexibility, we do not expect exactly that the above subsections in the proposal will appear with these titles, orin that particular order. Moreover, we encourage students toexperiment with new modes of writing and problematizing representation (see Gergen & Gergen, 2000), bur these are not likely yet to have fully germinated at the proposal stage. 1, Background of the Study (Here is the state of knowledge so far and the contexts within which the work will proceed.) Many, perhaps mest, questions students propose for narrative research derive from their own experiences—with particular problems, issues, or subgroup identities. They seek to give voice to what is not well-represented in the science of human experience, which is a commendable goal. Often, such students are trying to shape a long-held protest that emerges from years of studying psychology and not finding some deeply etched personal knowledge anywhere discussed. These students are “connected,” often “pas- sionate” knowers (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986) who aim to bring together their personal and scientific knowledge and are willing to put unusual amounts of energy and efforts into their studies. Our attitude is to respect personal knowledge and self-study as well as scientific eources. (For additional discussion of this issue, see the chapter by Ellis & Bochner ‘on autoethnography in Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). 262 JOSSELSON AND LIERLICH Together with this personal curiosity, every good research question flows from a thoughtful reading of the existing state of knowledge. But the issue of the relationship between theory and phenomena in qualitative research is a thorny one. Grounded theory, as it was frst understood, was, to be a method in search of theory, and many advocated that qualiative research be undertaken with a blank slate on which emerging theoretical constructs would later be inscribed. More recently, Strauss and Corbin (1994) have made a strong statement that this was never the intent of grounded theory—that there was always the supposition of theoretical sensi- Livity, that is, a body of theoretical knowledge that the researcher held loosely in mind, not providing hypotheses to test, but conceptual fields within which to understand the observed phenomena. Still, there is enormous disagreement scross the social sciences about the role of theory in narrative inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). ‘The aim of the background section, then, sto hold the tension berween personal and theorecical knowledge, to straddle the line berween a necessary ‘openness to phenomena that are as-yet-unknown and theoretical sophistica- tion that, loocely held but firmly integrated intellectually, stands in the wings to illuminate the interviewees’ words, readings of the texts, and understandings of the narrative that will emerge. ‘The theoretical part of che background section of the proposal must open the inquiry, not narrow and focus it. By stating the boundaries of the theoretical/conceptual field within winich the student intends to work, it out- lines in a general way the student's erudition and frame of mind. It provides orienting (but not operational) defnitions of key terms (Sandelowski et al., 1989) that enclose the investigation. in whar theoretical language does the student think, with what concepts, what lenses? To which theorists is the student likely toturn to move phenemenological description to more abstract, conceptual ground? Or pethaps the student intends to challenge or extend 2 particular theoretical position by analysing cases that question or enlarge theoretical assumptions, or to try to enrich a theory by parsing in more detail than is customary particular instances that the theory addresses. In the final narrative of their study, students will have to return to @ conversation with the theoretical literature in order to place their findings and understandings. The theoretical overview cection of the proposal, there- fore, outlines the possibilities of ongoing discussions that the student's work might join while not foreclosing the possibility that other conceprual frame- works will, in the end, prove to be more useful A theoretical background section written too tightly begins ve read either like a hypothesis-testing enterprise of a confining framework that may preclude the discovery of new knowledge. On the other hand, a sparse theoretical background section may suggest that the work is purely 263 NARRATIVE RESEARCH PROPOSALS a descriptive and is likely to invite criticisms of not being scholarship. This section primarily serves the function of demonstrating the students’ sophisti cation in the liverature, their abiliey to read integratively and to leave space for alternative voices in psychological theory and practice. [t sets out what the students have read and what they have made of it, what seem to be the important issues and debates, what is necessary to advance theoretical knowledge in this sphere. At the same time, this section should demonstrate that students are open to the complexity of the phenomena rather than rooted in a particular a priori conceptualization. The theoretical background section alo must include an empirical literature review—that is, a summary of relevant and related studies that bear on the subject of the proposed research. In order to establish the merits of doing the study, the student must demonstrate that what we know collectively is not enough. But this is often a problematic section as the student struggles with the level of detail to include and how far to range in considering what is relevant. Narrative research is more complicated to summarize and present—as well as to find—than are the more quantitative and psitivistic studies. Quantitative studies are organized around method; studies build on each other using similar or elated methods or they contradict cone another by showing that changes in method change results. Qualitative studies, by contrast, are focused on processes—and some ofthe most interest- ing findings of a study are often buried among the narrative quotations or in discussion sections of papers or books that, in terms of their content, may seem unrelated. Thus, a student who wishes w study the processes incurred by a certain immigrant subgroup in Finland may find much that is relevant in a stady of immigrants to Israel. But the points of similarity cannot be known at the outset. What counts ar the proposal stage is that the student is aware that such related literatures exist and is prepared to study them as data analysis proceeds. ‘One major difference between the processes of doing quantitative and qualitative research is the notion of sequence. Students trained in a ‘quantitative tradition learn that first you create your hypotheses, then you collect your data, analyze it, and then write it up. There are no comparable phases in qualitative research. Teachers of qualitative methods try to teach their students to begin writing (their thoughts, suppositions, expectations, reflections on the rescarch process, etc.) before they even collect data (Janes ick, 2000; Wooleote, 1999; also chapter 12, this volume). Reading the literature of related work should be continuous—and most intense as data collection is underway. (I always find that when | am actively collecting data, everyone whose work I read seems to be talking about my data—even novelists—and when I tell my students this, chey find it true for them as well but felt embarrassed about it before I legitimized it for them.) Some professors in anthropology encourage their students to delay most of their 264 JOSSELSON AND LIEBLICH reading until after the empirical stoge, so that their approach to the “field” might be as pure as possible. Our position is chat the literature summary does not have to be complete before the proposal is approved—just that the student demonstrates an awareness of the works he or she needs 10 interact with throughout the life of the study. In the finished work, most ‘of the discussion of related empirical literature ought to be in the discussion’ section, integrated or compared with the student's findings. In the proposal, though, the literature review must launch the study in such a way that the research question evolves naturally from it. The format for the theoretical background section, then, should be: Here isa phenomenon that interests me. Here is a theory (or theories) that was created to organize and understand the phenomenon of X, but it falls short in some important way. Here are some empirical ways that people have tried to understand X and this is what they seem to have discovered 10 far. And this is what I (possibly with some stacement at this point about who “l”is)—provisionally, tentatively, critically, inquivingly, and with great curiosity—think is important here. 2. The Focus of Inquiry and Its Significance (Here is what I want to now and why I think it is important.) ‘The theoretical background section is always written somewhat teleo- logically in that it must lead inevitably to a statement of the student's research purpose. This always takes the form of: “After reviewing the avail- able theoretical and empirical literature and considering the intersection between them, and after reflecting on what I have learned fiom my own personal experience about that (if it is relevant) ... I find the following problem or lacuna in the relationship between theory and phenomena; or T think that Y group has been omitted from consideration and might have ‘a.umique experience; or maybe if we look at the processes in X with narrative ‘modes of inquiry we might find that X takes a different shape"—or some variant of these. The research question must be cleaily stated, not as one that can be answered, but as one that calls for exploration. In narrative! qualitative projects, the question usually has a how” either explicit or embedded in it because “how” points to dynamic processes that can be thickly described. “How” or “what kinds of” also imply that the exploration will involve multiple descriptions at varied levels of analysis. In some ways, the word “question” here may mislead the student. The “question” isa focus of inquiry, broadly conceived, and is more likely to be a paragraph than a single phrase with a question mark following. It is more likely a statement fa problem that needs investigation, a set of meanings that call for articula- tion and elucidation or a space that has not been sufficiently filled in. Sul, NARRATIVE RESEARCH PROPOSALS 265 the student must clearly state what he or she hopes to discover. Proposals often fail because ce research problem appears too vague, 100 general, too unfocused—"How do women adapt to midlife” “How do people choose their careers?” “How do people decide who to many?” These are all from early drafts in our files. Most good “questions” for narrative research are open-ended but fo- cused on specific experiences or societal subgroups, bounded by conceptval frameworks. For example: How do battered women, now living in a shelter with their children, experience themselves as mothers; in what arcas ot when are they pleased with versus critical of their mothering? To what do they attribute these phenomena? How ate they related to their memories of being mathered? (Or, in another area: Hiow do adults who had been educated in a special program for the underprivileged construct che story of their schooling and its results in their lives as adults? How do these experiences illuminate the role of environment in educational attainment? 3. Plan of Inguiry (How I intend to find ou something about all of this.) As we stated above, we have dropped the word “method” from our teaching and writing because it has become shrouded, in our reading, with a kind of mystical reverence, as though the procedure, rather than the thinking, produces knowledge. The proposal has already stated what is known, in what terms it has been understood in this and other research traditions, and what the scudent wants to know or develop about the topic. ‘The aims of narrative inquiry are to turn to some relatively unexplored ot unknown phenomena and co reexamine them naively (Sandelowski et al., 1989)—this is foundational. Simply pur, this section must address the question “How are you going to begin to tr to ind out?”—recognizing that as the investigation proceeds, the form of “inding out” may change. A longexegesison qualitative methods is superfluous here. People do not usually write a treatise on the philosophy cf science underlying logical positivism. With the advent of ucceprance of Phenomenological, hermeneatic-and constructivist inquiry in the social sciences (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) itis not necessary to justify the epistemol- ogy in a proposal. [t may, however, be necessary to explain why the research ‘question necessitates a qualitative or narrative apprcach (e.g, because it

    You might also like