25
NARRATIVE INQUIRY
lvlultiple Lenses, Approaches, Voices
Susan E. Chase
D uring the early 19905, as I struggled to
in:erpret and represent as narrative my
i:1terviews wit:1 women schuol g'Jper-
it1tetldenrs, ] relied on a rich interdisciplinary
tradit'on defending the study of individuals in
their social and histo:ical context That trad ition
ind udes works as divers;; as Thomas and
Znanie,ki's (191 S' 1927) The Polish Peasant ill
Europe and America. Garfmkel's (1967) c:fmo-
methodolog:cal lltudy of Agnes, a:1d the Ill:r50:1<11
Narratives Group's (1989) :emir.isl explorations of
women's journals, Hfe histories, and autobingra-
phicil. In this trad:tion, researchers begin with the
biographical leg ufMilIs's (1959) famous trilogy-
biography, history, and society, Mills called t1ese
three "the co-ordinate points of the proper study of
man"(p.143). Of coulse,J was also w:iting llfter:rU?
narrative turn, and so Barthes's (1977) drama:ic
words-"narrative is presf'nt every age, in every
place, in every society" (p. 79)-had a:ready inlll-
trated suciological theory. And yet I found few
empirical sociological studies based lm interview
material that could serve as methodological mod
els for the particular way in which! wanted to treat
the women's interviews as narratives. Most he~pfu:
:0 me was Ricssman's (I 990) approa6 to interview
material in Divorce Talk.'
These days, narrative inquiry in :he sodal
sdcr.ces is flourishing. Signs of th:s burgeo:ling
:1 [CI'!:5: include an interdiSciplinary jouna:
called Nurmlive Inquiry, a :'ook series on The
Narrtltive Study of Lil'es, and professional.,;oofer-
ellces specifically showcasing narrative work. 1
Nonetheless, J s:i11 get the sense that narrative
inq uiry is a field in the making. Researchers new
to this field will find a rich 'Jut diffuse trad:tion,
multiple methodologies in various stages of
development, and plenty of opporh.;uities for
exploring new ideas, method~! !lnd questions.
1n preparation fur writing th:5 chapter, I gathered
ar.d read as many examples of ,,'hat might be called
fla:rative inquiry as I could, and I wrestled with var-
ious ways of delioiIlg the oontoun; of narrative
inquiry, both past and present Although qualitative
researchers now routindy refer to any p:usak data
(as opposed to dose·er.ded or short·al1swerdata) as
"narrative" (Polkinghorne, 1995), I present narrarive
inquiry as a particular type-a ~ubtype-of quali·
tative inquiry. Contenporary narrative inqu'ry can
be characterized as all amalgam of interdisciplinary
analytic lenses, diverse d:sc:plinary approaches, and
both traditil1nal ilnd innovative methods-all
ren)]ving around an interest biographical pank-
ulars as narra~ed by the one who lives them.
111 651
652 IS HA:-:llllO(}J( QUALr~'ATlVE RESEAR{::i-CHAPTER 25
In what follows, I begin by defining some
pivotallerms and then di~mss Ihe preciec('sso:'S
of contempora;y na :rative xsearchers: sodolo~
gists and ant'lropologists who championed the
life history method during the first half of the
20th century, secone-wave femillj.sls who poured
llet\' life into the sbdy of personal narratives, and
sociolinguists who treated ora: narrilt:ve as a
rorn: of discourse worthy of stu':y ir. itself. After
that histor:cal overview, ! turn to contemporary
narrative inquiry, articulating a uf analytk
lenses through which narrative researchers view
en:?irica! matedal and outlining several Clirrent
approaches to narrative research. Next come
explorations of speciflc r:1 elhodolog:cal issues ill
contemporary narrathrc inquiry. For researchers
who coiled narratives through intensive inter-
views, II central question is how 10 treat th(~
interviewee as a na;mlor, bnth during interviews
and while imcrprel:ng them. For all r:arrative
researchers, II centra: question revolves arOUl:a
whid: voice or voiceS rescar~hers should lise
as they i:1tcrpret and :'C?resenl the voices of
those they study. And although all qualitative
re::,earcilers address the question of the telation-
sUp between the relatively small "sample" they
stndy and sum e larger whole, th is questio;1 is
particularly poignant for narrative re&earcilers,
>\'1'.0 often pre.,,,nr the narratives of a very ~mall
number of individu<lls-or even uf JUS! one
individual-in their pb: i ~hed works. ','he subse-
quen: section addre"", tr.e relationship between
:tarrari\!{' inquiry and socia_ d:angc. In the con-
cluding paragraphs, I ske:ch some questions
that arose for me as I workeci OIl this chapter,
questions :hat I hope narrativG inquirers will
explore during the coming years.
JIll Fc UNDN:-IO'<' {t MATTERS
AND H1STOIHCAL B.4.CKGROI'ND
PiVOtal Terms
The :erms that r:arratlve researC.1ers us= to
describe the e:n pirieal materi al the)· s:udy have
flexible meanings, beginning with narrative itself.
A narrative nay, be oral or written and maY, be
elicited or hea~d ,hring tIddwoJ'k,({n interview,or
"naturally occurring conversation. In ar.y of these
sitLatioflS, a narr3:ive may be (a) a sho;! topical
slory about a ;lllrticuhlt event and specific charac-
ters such as an en counter with a friend, boss, or
darlOr; (b) an extended stOl'Y about a significant
aspec: of one's life such as schooling, work,
n:arriage, divorce, childbirth, an illness, a t:anma.
Of participation in 3 wa r or social mtlvemcn:;
of (c) a narative of one's enlire life. frtlm hir6 to
the prcser:t.
hiswry is tl:c 1:10re specitk term Itat
researchers uSe to describe an extensive autobio-
graphical mmat:vc, in either ora; orwritlen form,
that covers a:J Of mosl of a life. But lile hiswry can
also cefer 111 a Sfldal science text that presents a
person's biog,aphr~ In ,hat case, life stOll tlIay be
U1>ed to describe tl:e autobiographical story ill the
persods own words (tilr the cOITI?lexity of tltes.:
terms, see J:l;:rtaux, 1981; Frank, 200n). Yet some
researchers treat th" ter:ns life history a:1d life
stOfr as interchangeable, ddinh:g ':loth a< birth-
to'prese:!t narratives (Atkinsor:, 2002), :or still
others, a lite story is it narrative about a op~cilk
significant aspect of a persoo'S life, as in the
secor:d definition (b) in the preceding para-
graph. A life story may also revolve around an
epiphanal event (Denzrr., 1989) or a turning
(McAdams, Josselson, & L:eblich, 20m) i:1 one's
life, Instead of lifo story, some re;e.archcTO use per
sona/ narrative :0 describe a cmnpe:Jing topical
narration (Ries~man, 2002a)_ They may use this
term to indicate that they are :1(11 talking about
literary narrat:ves or folklore (bu, see Narayan &
George, 2002, for the Interm;ngJng of personal
narracive and folklore), Personal narrative can
also refer in a more gem:ric sense 10 diaric:s,jot.:r-
nals, and letters ;;, well as to a;Jt()bi(lg~aph ical
stories i,Personal1\arratives G,nup. 1989),
Hisluriam usc oral history to describe
inttrviews in whkh the is not (If] histori-
cal events themselves-historia:1s' traditional
interest-but rather Q:1 the mean i r.gs thai events
hold for tnos(' who lived t:trough them (McMahan
& R(Jgc~~, 1994; T'l(Jmpson, 197812000). A testi-
0,
monio i~ a type of oral ;1;story, life history, life

story; it is <1:1 explicitly political narralive that
describes and resists oppression (Beverley, 2000;
Tierney, 2000; :;ee also Jlcvnlcy, chap. 22. Ihis
volume), ror the past few ~:.;!cadcs. ~estirtw1'!io
been espeda[y assock.:ed with the (usually (lrai)
narratives of Latin American activim in revolt:-
tiunary moyerncnt, (e.g.. 1fenchU, : 964; .\loyano,
2000; Randall, 19R I, 1994, 20(3). Finally, a perfor.
mance narrative Irar.sfor I:]., any urai or written
narrative into a :Jl.blic perfurmance, ei :he; 011
8tage (.Madison, 1998; MeC,,] & Recker, ]990) [)r in
alternative textual torms such as POCI:)' and fico
tion (Den:>:!n, 1997,2000,2003; Richardson, 2002).
Sociology and Early Life Histories
The predecessors of today's narn1tive
researdu::ro include the Chicago School sodolo·
gists who collected life histories and other
sonal doel: merts during the 192(l, and 1930s.'
Thomas and Zr:ani~cki's (1918/1927) The Poirsh
Peasant is freq 'Je nt! y dted as the first sign itl-
cant sociological use of life history, In the final
300 l'i1ges of the second volume. Thumas and
Znanie~ki presented ::11; "life record" of II l'oEsh
immigrant, Wladek WislT:i{:wski, whum they pllid
10 write his a1ltohiographv (;>. :912). The sodolo
gi, Is' voice preceded the life record with r:earl y
800 pages on the disorganization and reorgani·
zation sodallife in Poland as weI! as the orga·
nization and disorganilatiun of social IJe after
imm'gra:inn to :he Un [ted States, They also added
ex?l:matory footrotes throughout \Viszniew,ki'g
life record.
In CAplaining their [nterest :n life records,
ThOlT:as a:ld ZIl3niecki (1918/1927) stated.
A sodal ins;::ution call be l:J:I. Urlcerstood onh: if
we do 110t limit (\~lrselv<:& to Ih~ abst rae! ,tudy oi
formal (lfganizatio:;, but ar:~lIyze th" way in ,,,hiel!
it appears ill :Jersonru cxperi('l1ce of var'OllS
mt'mbcrs of tre gmllp a:1d follow the intluer:ce
which it has upn:: their lives. (p, .1:133;
[ndeed, they d?im"d, "Personal records, as
complete as possble, constitute the Pt'Tfocl type
of sociologicai material" (p, 11i32) h their view,
ehasl;': :-Iarrativc Inquiry III 653
social scientists tll rned to other materials ar:d
methods because of prllctical difficulties; I: is too
time«lDSuming to gel suftkicflt numbers of life
records on every sociological issue, ane it is too
Ii me-collsuminl! to analFe them. Nonetheless,
som~ sociolng!sts. ~sptdally in i'olalld, made the
effort. J6zef Chala3inski, a follower of Znalliecki:
cha:npio:led th(' mctl:oe of asing publk competi·
tions to s.olicil hundreds of ord:nary people's auto·
biographies. His research demonstrated that Mtlle
formation a;ld transformations of whole sucia;
dll,lses (peasants, workers l could he described am:
understood by analyzing sets of autobiographies"
(Rertaux, 198:, p, 3; see also Chic:asi t\ski. 1981).'
The Polish Peasant was followed by other
C:1i..:ago SdlOOl studies based 011 life histories,
espedall y of juvenile delinq uents and criminals
(e.g" Shaw, 193011966, Sutherland, 1937), These
sociologists had some interest in the bdividual's
subjective , but they were prin:arily
:n:ercstcd in explaining Ihe individual's behavior
as an interactive process between the individ~
'.Ial and his or her sudu(ulJu:'al environ:neo:,
Although studie, or u;ban boys' and men',. lives
are freque:1tly dted in reviews of :he i ifc It istory
r:H:bod, Hagood's (1939) i'.rIalhers of th.~ South:
Portraiture !I/ lire while llmant Farm lVimulI! also
uf!er, an eltan: pie of early narra:ive methods,'
During the 19401} 2nd 19508, mainstream
Am('ricall SOCiology favored abstract theor}' along
with survey and statistical research me:hod" and
the iife ];istory method W1tS marginalized. At this
point, sociologists -,'I'ere n:ore interested in pOSt.
tilt!,t methods thai uSe single s:udies to confirm
or disconfirm predetermined hypotheses than in
research bast'd on the "mnsaic" moeel offered by
the Cl:icago School-studies that may prodJe,
no denn':ive conclusions of their own but that
contribute to a larger collective re,("arch er:deavor
(J:ieck~r, 19(,(,. PP- viii-ix. xvi-)(viii; lIertaux, 1981,
P, I; l)cl1zin, I97(), p, 219),
Anthropology and Early Life mstories
Antr,rnpologkalusc of the life history method
c:Tle~ged early ill 20th cent'JfY, mostly a& a way
of recordjn~ American lr:dian cu::ures that were
654 III HANDBOOK OF QtA:'JIAIIVE RESEARCE-CHAPTl:R 25
assamI'd to be nearly extinct 0 During the 19205,
life history became a rigorous allth :npol flgical
method wi6. the publication 0' Radin's (1926)
Crashing Thunder (Lang:1 eSS & Frank, 198 1,
FP, 17-18,20). Crashing Thunder, a middle-aged
Winnebago man in tlr:andal diftkulty, wrote hls
autobiography for a fee ir: two sessions n,urie,
1961, p. 92). Radin (1926) supplied the Lulturnl
context and heavy an notations of the life record.
During t:1e early period, nnthropologists
gathered life his:ories as a way of understand :ng
cultural facts, choosing to sl'Jdy people \\' hLJ they
a,sumed were representative of their cultural
group (Lang!less & Frank, 1981, p, 24). By 6"
mid, I940s, under the inLuence of Ecward Sapir,
Ruth Benedi<:I, ar:d Margaret Yeac, many
anthropologists had developed" stronger i nlerest
in inCivldt.:als pcr 51! and especially in :he fda-
tionship between cultu:al context and distinct
?crsonality types (Langncss, 1965, pp. II, :9;
see also DuBois, 1941/1960; Kardiner, 19451.
Anthropolugist~ also llSed lift' histories to present
insiders' view" of culm re and daily life, as excm-
plitied by Lewis's (196:) publica:ion of the life
stories of the members of Olle Mexican farn:]y b
Tile Children o/SdTlchez, [nlhis and lither worb,
I.cwis also deve:Llpcd the controversial concept of
"the ClIltt: re of poverty" (Lilngness 8; l'rank, 19d I,
pp. 24-25). Finally, anthropologists have used
life histories to study cultura: change, as brought
about either by contact hetween different (altural
gmups Of as th" fes:!l: of revolutionary move,
men,s (Langness. 1965, p. 16; langness & Prank,
1981, PI'. 24-27). Althoug.i the majority of early
anthropological life histories .""cre studies of
[:len, some anthropologists-mostly women--
used life h:slory methods to study women's
lives (Watson 8; Watson~Franke,1985. chap. 6).
Feminism and Personal ~arrative5
The liberation movemems of the 19605 and
1970s helped ttl reinvigorate the :tIe history
method. For example, the civ il rights movement
Ied to renewed interest in slave na rratives,
many of which had been coUected from 1'136
to 19 JR by unemployed writers working with
the feder.) Writers' Project of the Works Projec:
Administration, More r::tan 2,000 oral histories of
fermer slaves had been deposited in the :'ibrary of
Congress, but only a glimpse of them was available
10 the public :n Botk'n's (1945) Lay My Burden
Down: A 1-'0& liistory (If Slav"ry. 1\\'0 and a half
decades later, activists and academ:cs returned to
these narratives, and sociologist Rawick (1972)
published them b tbeir entirety in III volumes of
The Americ!IIl Slave: j~ Composite Autobiography.
In the introductory volume, be offered a beginning
toward a social histo:y of bla,k corr.mllnity life
lInder slavery, based on the narratives, countering
pre\' ious academic treatment of slaves as vuiceless
victirr.s (p. xivV
T:'e second wave of the women's movement
played a [:lajor role in th~ renaissance of I'fr history
rr:ethods a:ld tile study of persona: narratives such
as journals and at:wbiographies. xAs feminists cri-
ti':;'.led the a ndrocentric assump:io[1$ of social
science-that mens Iive~ and activities are more
impor:ant than those of women and/or constitute
the norm frum which women's Iive.~ ar.d activities
deviale-6ey began to treat wo:nen's personal
narratives a~ "essential primary documents lOr
feminist research" (Personal Narratves Group,
]989, p. 4). By listening to previollsly silenced
voices, fem:nis: researchers challenged social
science knowledge about society, culture, and
b[story (Belenky, Clinchy, Go:dbcTger, & Tarule,
1986; Franz & Stewart, 1994; Gluck, 1979; Gluck &
?alai, 1991; Personal f'\arratives Group, 1989;
Relnharz, J992, chap. 7; Reinllarz & Chase, 2002;
Watson 8< Watson-Franke. 1985, chap. 6), 'rhrOUg.1
the influence of working-clas< feminists and femi-
nists of coior (among OThers l. race, ethnicity,
natiol1alil y, social class, sexual orientation, and
disab::i:y came to the rore as central
of women's lives (for an extem ive Qverview,
sec Geiger, 1986; see also Olesen, chap. 10, this
volurr.e). The decade or so of semnd-vvave
academic feminism proc:Jced many examples
of [em in isl research based on life histories and
personal narratives (e,g" Bahb & Taylor, 1':181; Hunt
& Wi ncgar:er., 1983; Jacobs. ! 979; Ruddick &
Janieis, 1977; Sexton, /981; Sidel, 1978; tClT an
extensive list, see Reinharz, 1992, chap, 7).

The exp:osion in women's personal
narrat:ve!; was acconl:J<mied b~" feminist challenges
to com'entiunal assumptions about research rela-
tionships atd resc,lrcil methods. Thomas and
Znaniecki (1918/~927J, and many who followrd in
their tOot~teps, had said Jitt.:: ahou: how they garh"
ered their materials, :lOting onlr that they moti"
vitted people to write th~ir life b istor:es duoJ.;gh
monetary rewards or public contest, (Langue,s &
Frank, 1981; Watson & Wa:son-Fmr,~c> 1985). In
addition, despite the early E:e historians' apparently
humanistic benl (e.g., Shaw's [1930119661 interest
in amelioralicg the miserable conditions of
Stanley', I:fe as a jm'enilc delinqu~:l1 and anthro-
pologists' bterest in recording what they ass~Hned
were dlsa?pearing cultures), from a /em!ni,t poirl
of view, the people in these Ii r.;: h!stories appeared
,t> distant "others" or ceviant"o':ljects" of social sci"
entist intereilt It is i:np(lrtaml 10 in mi:1d, (If
CUUfse, that the early life historian~ were writing in
posit!v ist times, during which the sucial sciences
were struggling to gain recogr:itinn as sciences.v
feminists res;sted :he idea that life histories
and ulher personal narndws were primarily
'Jsefui for gathering information ;about histulicaJ
even::;, cultl:ml change, or the impact of sudal
struct;lres on individuals' lives, R'lther, they were
i:1terested in WQ:nCl1 as social,", IO:S tnd, own
riSh! and in the sab jective meanings that women
assigned to events and condit;ons tn their lives.
Importil:1tly, these fe:ninis: lenses opened up new
undc;,rand:ngs of historical. cultural, and social
processes. Furthem::ore, as fcminiscs approached
women as subjects rather than ,,5 objects, they
;;.Iso beg,ln to consid/;': their subjectivity-the
role bat re;;earchers' intert:sts and sociallocalion&
play in the researc~ relationship. V{hose questions
should get asked and 31:swered? \.\/ho should get
the last sa::? How docs pewee operate in Ihe
research relationship? And as "'en:i:1 isIS incorpo-
rated pllstmodert influences, they began to ask
questions-wh:ch are still pertinent :oday-
about voke, a\lthe:ltkity, interpretive authority,
and representation. What do\:s it mean to hear the
other's voice! In ",hat sense co-or dun't-
wo:nen's Ufe histories ar.d personal narratives
"speak themselves"? How do interactional,
Chose: Nllrralive Inquiry 11 655
social, clIbura:, amd historical cond! :1011$ r:tediate
women's stories? In what ways a:e women's vokes
muted, mulCp:e, and/or contradictor)'? Under
what conditior:s dn women devdop Hcounlemar·
ratives" ali they narrate their lives? How should
researche:s represent all ,hese voices a nd ideas
itl their written works? (Anderson & Jack, 199:;
McCall & Wittner, 1990; Personal Narratives
Group, : 989; l{jbbell~ & Edwa:ds, 1993).
Sociolinguistics and Oral Karratives
The mid· 1960s saw tl:e deveiopme:1t of another
line of inquiry that has influenced oontempOl"«ry
narrative research. At this time, anthf(l:lologig~s,
sociologistl>, and socioli :1gu i, t& ( e.g., Erving
Coffn:a 11, Harold Ga~finkel, John Gll!npe:z, D~U
Hymes, Harvey Sacks, Emanllel &hcgloff, William
tabuv} were explor:ng a ":",mge of subject !.latters
a: the intersection of language, interaction, dis-
course, practical actio:1, ;and i:J:mmce" (Sciegloff,
1997, p" 98).
A :967 arlldr :l¥ i.aho\' and Wlllelz;,y,
"Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personld
Experience;' is often cited as a groundbreskkg
presentation of the idea that ordinary peoplt:'s oral
narratives of c\'erycay experience Ias opposed to
full-tkdgnllifi: his7nries, wr::tci: narmt:ves, foU,"
lore, and literary narratives) are worthy of study in
themselves. In this article, Laboy and Waletzky
(l967Jl997) arg'Jcd that oral narratives arc a
s;n:citic ':orm of discourse characterized by certain
structures seTV ing spedtk social fur:ctions, Using
datil from indh'iJulll u:1d foeJs group i:lterviews,
Ihey clai:nec that narrative discourse consists of
dauses that match the tempora: sequence of
reported even:s. They also identHied five sociolin-
guistic feat'Jres of oral narratives: Orientation
(w hich informs listene:s about actors, t' me.
place, and situatkll1), Complication (the nlain
body of the narrative-the actiun), EvaJJatiol1
(the point of the story), Re,qoJution (the reJult of
the action), and Coda (whier. Te!urns the lister:cr
to the wrrent momt:1t l.
b 1997, the Journal <if Namni'vf and Lifo
lli~lory reprinted Labov and Waletzkr's :967
article a long with 47 then -curre:!! assessments
 III HANDBOOK OF QUALl'I:i\T:VE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 25
of 'now it had influenced linguistka]y inforDed
narrative inquiry since it was fi (Sf published,
Bruner (1997), for ir:stance, suggested tha: Labov
and V'kletzky's "fivefuld char<Kle~jzation of over-
a:l narrative structure transformed the study of
narrative profoundly. [: sec many of us thinking
about the cognitive ,epresentation of reality
imposed narrative structure on our expe:ience
of the world and how we evaluate that experien,:e"
Cp. 64). Reterrirg to his own int1uCI:tia 1 distin.:
lion betw.:en logico-sdentific and narrative
modes thought-wh'eh he had articulated in
Actual Minds, P"!lsible Worlds (Bruner, 1986)-
Brt:ncr (;997) added, "I happily admit that it
set me thinking about na!nliYe I1{Jt sil!:pl r as a
form {Jf texl but as a IT!ode of thought" (p. 64 ,.
Many of the assess:nents of the 1967 artide
,mint to limits of Laboy and Waletzky's nar-
rowly structural ist forD'Jlation. For example,
Ricssman (1997) gave them credit for helping her
attend to the fundamental structures and fUl1c-
rio:15 of oral narratives in her reseore'1 on people'~
experiences of divorce, But :;he found their defin-
it:on of narrative much too narruw. and so she
developed a typology of narrative genres sLlch as
tne habitual narrative and the hypothetical narra-
tive (pp. I 156). These helped Ries~man to
show how people recount their divorce experi-
ences differently and to discu,~ th", connect~on
between the for:n and function of their speech.
]n a different vein, Schegloff (J 997) critigacd
Labo" and Waletdy's failure to take into a,x;ounl
the interllctitJlJal conted in which oral narratives
are elicited and received. Over :he pa~t three
decades. conversation !Inalyst~ such as ScJ::egloff
have explored (arr:ong other things) how stories
ariSE ar:d IImv they funct:on in r:aturall)· occur-
ring conversations (tor an overview, see Holstein
& Gubrium. 2000, chap. 7). Other sociolinguisti-
cally oriented researchers have investigated the
research interview i:,e!f as a particu:flr kind of
discourse or communicative event in whirh
narratives may he dIscouraged or encouraged
(Briggs. 1986, 2UU2; Mishler. 1986). Furt:lermore,
although Labov and Waletzky assumed a one-
lo-one correspondence between a narrdtive and
the events it describes-between narrative and
reality-mns: researd:ers since then have
resisted Ihis referential view of language, A cell-
tral tenet of the narrative turn is that speakers
construct events through narrative rather than
$imply refer to evcnts.1ll
Despite the Iimitations uf the or! gi nal formula-
tion, the attertion that Labo\' and Waletzky
devoted to the: ingub I:, strudure:l and functions
of ordinary people's oral narratives servec as a
launching pad for diverse explorations of the
;;oc:olinguist:c features of oral discourse. Many
contemporary narrative researchers embrace the
idea how i:ldivid'J;l]S :l.arrate experience i~
as impurta:lt to the meanings they communicate
as is what they say.
III CONTE~fPORARY NARRATIVE INQ:JIRY
Turning to the preser,t, 1 begin by o Jtlinmg a set
of five analytic lensc~ rhro'Jgh wh:rn contempo-
rary researchers approach empirical material.
These lenses ret1eet the inll U!!llCt: of the histories
just reviewed and, taken as a whole, suggest foe
distindiveness of narrative inqui ;y-how it is
different from (if connected to) other forms of
qualitative research,
Analytic Lenses
First. nar:".ltive researchers :reat narralivc-
whether oral or wtiuen as a di;;tinrt form of
discourse. l\arr3live is retrospective meaning
making-the shaping or ordering of past experi-
ence, Narrative is a way of understanding one'/;
own and others' adions. of organizing events and
objc;;:ts ioto a meaningful whole, and of connect-
and seeing the collsequer..;es Qf actions and
events over time (Bruner, 1986; Gubr'utfl &
Holstein. 1997; Hinchman 8; H:nch:nar:, 2001;
:aslett.1999; l'olkinghorne.1995). Unlike a chron~
ology, 'l,hich also reports events ov"r time, a
narrative commun:cale; Ihe narrator's point
view, induding why the narrative is wonh telling
in the IITSt place. T:1US, in addillon to descr:bing
what happened, narratives also express emotions.
thoughts, and interpretations, Unlike editorials,

policy statemer:ts, and doctdnal statemer:ts of
beEe£, all of which also express a point of view, a
narrative makes the se:f (the narrator) the protag-
onist, either as actor O~ liS interested observer of
others' actiuns, Finally, unlikt; sd;;:ntilk disCO'Jrse,
which also expleins or presents an understandi ng
of actions and events, narrative discourse high-
lights the uniqueness each human action and
event ratner tha::! their rommon proper:ies (Bn:ner,
1986; PolkinghulI1e, :995),
Serood, narrative researchers view narraEves as
verbal action-as doing or accomplishing 30me-
thing. Among other things, narrators expla in,
entertain, inform, defend, complain, !I:ld confirm
or challenge the stiltus quo, Whatever the particu-
lar action, when someone tells a story. h" or she
s'tapes. constructs. and pcrforos the ~elf; expe~i·
enee, and reality, When reseaxl:eTs treat naTra
lion as actively creative in this way. they
emphasize the narrator's \'oice(s), rhe word voice
draw:; our <lttemiorl to what It" narrator commu-
nicates and :'ow he or she cOlllmucicales it as well
as to the subject positoos or sodallocations fmm
which he or she speaks (GubrimTI & Holstein,
2002), This comb:nation of what, how, and where
makes the narrator's voice partic:llar. Furlher~
IT.ore, when researcherl'> treat narration as actively
creative and the narretor'~ voice a" l'ar:ic'Jlar,
they move away from questions about the factual
nature the narrator's statements, Instcad, they
h'ghligbt the versions of sclf. rea:ity, and experi.
ence that be storyteller produces 1I',rough the
telling. Although narnnors are accounlabll: for the
aooihility of their stories. nar:'dtive researchers
:reat credibllity and believability as som e:hing
:hat storytellers accof:1pJsh (Holstein 8: Gubr:um.
2000; Lincoln. 2000),
Third, narrative researchers view stories as
';)oth enabled and constrained by a range of 50cial
resources and circumstances, These loci nde the
possfJiJities for self and reality constf'Jctio:1 that
are i nte[jg~hle with in thc narrator's community,
local setting, organizational and social member-
ships, ard cuitural and h!storicallocation. \'\lhile
acknm'l'ledginglhat every ins:ance of narrative is
particular, researchers use this lens to attend to
s:milarities and differences across narratives, For
Na;rative Inquiry III 657
example, :hey emphasize patterns in the storied
se:ves, subjectivities, and realities :ha: narrators
create during partkt:iar times and in particdar
places (Brockmeier & Carbaugh, 2001; Brune"
2002; Hatch & Wisniewski, 1995; Holstein &
Gubrium.2000),
Fourth, narrative researchers treat lIaHa:ive~ as
socially situated irteractive periormances-as
produced in this particular setting. for this partic·
ular audience, for these particular purposes. A
siory tole to ar bterviewer in a quiet relaxed set-
:ing willlikel y differ from the «same" s:o:y told to
3 reporter for a ~devi~i()n news shuw, to a llrivate
jou :nal that tbe writer assumes will never be read
'Jy others, to a roomful of people who have had
similar experieoces, to a social service counselor,
or to the saIT.1! interviewer at a different time, Here,
rescard:ers emphasize that the narrator's story is
Bexihle. va riahle, and shaped in par: by interaction
with the audience, In otb:r words, a r.arrative is a
joint production nar:-ator and listener, whether
the r:arrative arises i1: naturally occurring talk, an
interview, or a fieldwork setting (BaUlun, 1986;
Briggs. 1986.2002; )Aiankr, 1986),
Fifth, na,mtive researchers, like many other
contemporary qualitative researcher;;, \'iew them
selves as narrators as they develop interpretations
and find ways in which to present or publish their
ideas about the r.arratives they studied (lJenzin IX
Lincoln, 2000). This mear,s that the four lenses
just de.cribt:d make 3S much sense when appl ied
to the researcher as they do when applied 10 the
rescarchec, Breaking fro:n traditioral social
science practice. narrative researchers are likel)i to
usc the first perl'>on when presenting their work,
thereby emphasizing tteir own Ilarrative action,
As narrators, then, researchers develop meaning
out of, and some sense of order in, the material
they studied; they develop their own voke(s) as
they construct others' voices and realities; tney
Ilarrate "results" in ways that are both enabled and
constrained by the social resources and cir,um~
stances embedded in their disciplines. cultures.
and :,i5torical moments; Ilnd they write or per-
form their work for parti cular audiences. The idea
that researchers are narrators opens up a range of
complex issues about voice, representation. and
658 III HANDBOOK or QJAU'::ATIVE R:::SEARCH-CHAPTER 25
in:erpretive authority (Er:lihovich, 1995; Hertz,
1997; Josselson, i 996a; Kriege~, 1991; Tierney,
2002; Tieeney & Li ncoln, 1997).
Ttooretiea;ly, it is possible to treat these five
analytic lenses as distl net. H(Jwev~r, as researchers
go ahout the bus! ne.~s of hearing, roll wing, inter·
pret' ng, and represer.ting na~ratives, they are well
aware of the interconnectedness of the lenses. As
they do their work, researchers may emphasize
one ur another lens ur theiJ' intersecliUlls, or they
may shift back and forth among :he lenses,
depending on tne!: specitlc approaches to empiri-
cal narrative nateriaL
Diverse Approaches
Although narrative inyu iry as a whole is
interdisciplinary, specific approaches te:1d to be
shaped by interests and assumptions embedded
in researchers' disciplines. Withont claiming to be
comprehensive or exhaustive in my categories,
I briefly outllr.e five lIHljor approaches :n contem·
porary narrative inquiry. Jl It is here that we see
divers!:; ane r:1l11tiplidty in this field 0f :nquiry.
Some psychologists have developed an approach
that focuses on the relationsiip between individ-
uals' life sturie, and the quality of their :ives.
especially their psychosocial dC'lelopmem. l2 In
addition to gathering ex:ensive life stories,!J these
researcl-ters sometime., use conventional psy·
cholog:cal tests. For cxample. in a study of adults'
narratives about turning points in their Eves,
McAdams and Bowman (200n found :hat those
who score high on conventional measure;; of
psychological well·be:ng and generativity (I.e.,
commitment 10 can ng for and contributbg to
future generations) are likely to tell ":larrativ"s of
redemption;' that to construct negative even:s
as having benetlcial consequences. Conversely,
those who >.:;orc low i:1 terms of psychological
well-being and generativity are more likely to tell
"narrative~ of conta:nination;" that is, to present
good experiences as having negative outmmes.
while acknowledging that biographical, social,
(1.:: tural, and historical circumstances condition
Ihe storie, tln:t people tell about themselveo,
n~rrative psychologists look for evidence (e.g., in
a persons score on conventional lCleasures) that
the stories that people reJJ atlect how tney live
their Eves. T~ey emphasize "the for ma:ive efh:~cts
of narratives" and propose that some storics
cripple, and others enable, un cfficaciou., sense
of self in relation to life :Jmblems or traumas
(Rosenwald & Ochberg, ]992, p. 6).
[n their interpretations, these psychological
researmers tend to emphasize what the story :5
about-its plut, characters, and sometimes he
structure or sec,uendng of content. Along these
lines, McAdams ~ 1997) argued that the content of
a life storr c:n :,odics a person's idcmity and that
both develop and change over ti:ne."his idea was
exemplified by Josselsoll's (: 996b) longitudinal
study of how "on~en revise ['lei!' slories and their
lives as they move 7hmugh their 20" 308, and 4(1;;.
A second approa.::!! has bee:1 developed by
sociolog~sts who highlight the "identity work" that
people engage in as they construct selves within
specific i nst:tutional, organ '7.ational, d:scursivc,
a:1d local C'Jlturai contexts. Unl ike the psycholo-
gists just de$crihcd, who conccpt'Jalize the lite
dfory as distinguishable :rom-yct having an
impact on-the life, these researchers often treal
narratives as J:ved expe:ience. T~us, they ;lre as
inte::ested in the haws uf storytelling as fIlel' are in
the what, of stof)'te:ling-in the narrative prac-
ticr", hy which ,tory/eller, mlk... use of available
resources to construct recognizah:e sclves, They
o'ten study nartatives that are produccd i:1 specific
Q:-ga:t:zational se:tings such as prlsollS. cou:ts,talk
shows, human service agencies, self-:,elp groups,
[Il:d therapy ce:1lers (Gubrium & Holsleir:, 2001;
HoJs:ein & GJ b:ium, 2000; Miller, 1997; Follner &"
Stein, :996). For example, in her study Sllppmt
grnups (or womrl: who have experienced dome;ltk
violence, Loseke (2001) showed how group facilita·
tors often encourage battered wome:1 to transform
their narratives into "furrr.uJa stories" about wife
abuse. She fO'Jnd that many women resist the
counselMs' version of their experience and resist
identifybg them~elves as "battered women;' and
she suggested that the problem may lie less ill
'Nomen's psycholog:cal denial of their victimizil~
tiol1 and mort ill the fOfmWa stor y's failure to
ellcompass tl:e cOr.1plexitie, of lived experience

(p. 122), As part of evec-yday live\! expe:'iencc,
narratives themselves are nessy and complex.
A major cor:cepLlal :ouchstonc in this
s{JciologiQlI approach is the "depr ivatization"
of personal experience. This 'lpproach high·
light~ the wide range of instilu tional ilT:C 0 rgani ~
13110nal ,el1ir,gs-some more ,md some Ie,s
coercive-that s':!apc "t1;" selves \\Ie live by:' A
n,,",o';', movement across a variety of settings
c"'iites further constra:n:s as ""C: I as a plethora of
options lor narmtir.H the se',f in a ;:)ostmodern
world (Holstein & Gtlbrlum, 2000).
The third approach is ahiu soc:oloJ!ical. 14 Here,
narrative researchers share be h:rerC1If in the
hOJ+'S and whats of storytelling bu: Iheir
inquiry on intensive interviews about
llSpect~ of peopJe'sJives ra6er than on co!wcrsa·
lions in spec'tk organizational contexts, These
researchers are bterested in how people commu-
nicate mear:ing throllgh a range of linguistic
practices, how their ,Tories are embedded in
the interaction between researcher and narrator,
how they make sense of per~onal experience in
relation 70 ct:lturally and h:storically specific
disCOllr5es, and how they craw or:, resist, andlor
transform those discourses as tbey narrate their
selves, experiences, and realities.
Exampl~, of II:i" appwach : ~dude Langellier's
(200;: stlldy of how a woman performs tht'
and resi.ts mee kill discourse as she comes to
tcr:ns with '::In:as[ ca Clcer, Mishler's (1999) explo-
ration of adult identity fi1rmation it era;'t artist;;'
work histor ies, Poley and Faircloth's (2003) s:udy
of how midwives bUIll use and res:st rr.edical dis·
mum to legitimize thei: work, Ric»mads (1990)
ex~.mination of women's and mc;;s divorce s1or;cs
in re~atio:1 to discourse abont marriage a:ld gen·
der, Bell's (1 CJ99) exploration of how dicthylstilbes
tml (IJES)-ex?osed daughters negotia:c t<':n~ions
between .scienti:lc and fem:nist disconrses,
bUrell's (1997) analysis of the gendered and
:"adalizcd identities of working-class mu:he:s who
return to school to get general cql:ivalency diplo
mas ;GEDs), a:ld :empert's (1994) analysis DEhow
a womiln SllrY:vor of domes:k violence narrates
self-transformation in relation to her phys:cal.
psychological, social, ane cultllfal environ menls.
="arralivc Inq ui ry III 659
These researchers ofte:! produce de:a[[cd
transcripts tu stlldy :n:cradiomd i:1
!;,c i !ller'liew as well as Iingu;stic and tht'malic
patt~ms tbmughoul the :1armtive, A major goal ot
C, is sodolcgical approad': is s:1f>wi ng that people
,Teate a range of narre:i..;; s'.rategks in rdatio:! to
their discursive envirc!ll:llents, that is, that indi·
viduals' stories arc constrained but not deter-
mined by hegemonic discOI:rses, Another goal is
showing that nllfnlti'lcs prn'lide a window tn the
contrad:ctory and shding :latere of hegemonic
Ci scours::s, w~kh we tend :0 take for granted as
stable monolithic forces.
Anthmpoiogists have led the way a four:h
appro~.('h tn na::rative inquiry, SOITJt: call Ihis
approach mmative ethnography, whic~ is a trans·
formation of botb tbe ethnograp'lic and lite
'listory method"" Like traditional ethnography,
this app::oach i:1Voh-cs long. term l:1volveme:1t
in a culture or community; like jfe hi.IQry, it
focl:S{'s h~avily on ur.e lndi'lidual or on a sma II
number of i ndividllals. \'Vha! ma kc~ narrative
ethnography distinct is that hoth the rc:;carcher
and tb, researchcc presented
within ;) single 1Tlt:ltiv(lCal tellt focused on the
character and pmcc,:; Ill' the human .:n.;:ounter"
('I'd!
C 0(, k Jon"! .. "
,10h,:l.Y1lI),
.'YIyerhoff', (1979/1994) Numlm Our DilYs is
iln ca:'ly eXilDple. :0 this study of a co:nmunity
of elderly i mmigrar,t Jews in Californ:a, Myerhoff
highlighted the life of Shmuel Goldman, " tailor
and one of t;,e most learned membc:'1l of tl:e
cor:ununity. At the !laDe time, she <Ina:yzcd her
subjectivity as well as her relationship with those
she studied, AlthoLlgl: JliJyerhotf presen:ed page
after page of Shm lid's life stories "verbatim;'
also ,howed how her questio:lS and intertllp,
tions 6hapcd Sh:nud's nanallv,", And she went
further. She descr ibed ~er distaste on observ jng
selfish bkkcdng flYer food at a com :nunity
lunch. and then-with the ht'lp of a dream, she
reinteryreted :hose actions as reflecting the ~ocia:
and p5 ychologkal condit! OilS oi community
members'lives (pp, I 189). When Shmuel dlec
dml fig the course of the s:udy, Myerhuff wrote a
conversation she imagined she and Shmuel
would have had abo:.!! ilr:o:her cO:1lnlllnity
660 11 HANl>IlOm: OF QGAUTATIVE RE:,EARCH-CHAPTliR 23
mer:-i,er's centh (pp, 228-231), Finally, she told her
own s~ory of how her grandmodl(~r';; stories il:l~u'
eneed her own life and research (P}1, 237~24~l,
l:! more rece:1t narrative ethnographies, resear'
chers are even more explidt about the intE'rsubjec'
tlvilY of the researcher and the researched as they
work to under.tand the- othe;'s vo:ce, life, a:ld
culture (Behar, :993/2003; Frank, 2000; Shostak,
2000b), A maj (lr goal of narnltive ethnography
is moving tu :be ce:ner of empirical a:1thropo·
logical work the issues of voke, inre;subjedvity,
interpretive aurhot;t)', at1d representation.
A fifth approach to narrative inquiry is found
in autaethnogrllph), whre rese.m:hers also turn
the analytic lens on thel:m:lv;;s and their int~r­
actions with others, but here researchers wr'te,
illterjJfft, and/o:- pe;form :hcif OW11 narrat:ves
about c~liturally significant experiences (Crav,rley,
2002; Ems IX Berger, 2002; £]18 & Bochner, 1996;
Ellis & Flahe;ty, 1992; see also Holman Jones,
d:ap. 30, this volume), Autoethnographers who
,hare an interest if. a :(Jpic sometimes engage in
cl1llaborative research by conducting interviews
with e,lch other, tape.recoedlng conversat~Qns
\v::h each other, andJ or writi ng account&
of t I:ei r experiences, 1'0 r example, Ellis and
Kochner 11992) narrated separate and joint
accounts of their experience of EiIi~8 'Jnwantoo
pregna:1cy and subsequent abort:or:, And Elhs,
Kiesinger, Ilnd Tilbnann·Healy (1997) used an
interactive i:llerviewir:g method to inveiiligate
Kiesinger's and Tillmarm· Healy's experiences of
bu:i:nia and Ellis', respoo,!$ to :he:r !lCOJllntg,
Autoe~hnographers often present :heir work in
alternative textua: :'orms such as layered acoounts
(Ellis IX Berger, 2002; Ellis 3. Bochner, 1996),
and many !:ave experimented with pe~forming
tneir narratives as plays, as poe:ns, or in va:ious
other forms (Dem:in, L997, 2000, 2003; McCall
& Becker, 1990; Richardson, 2002), Sometimes
autoeth:mgraphers resist analySIS altoget!:er,
leaving interpretation up to the audiences of
their performances (Hilbert, 1990), The goal of
autoethnography, and of many performance
narrati."c", is to show rathe, th.u: to tell (Denzin,
2003, p,203) and, thus, to disrupt tbe po:itics of
trad [tional research ;ela tionshi PS, trad itional
forms of representation, and tradi :ionill social
s;;:ence orientations to audiences, '5
III .\1ETHODOLDGlCAL ISSUES IN
Cn:-r:'I'MpORA::l.Y NARRATIVE bQulR¥
The Research Relationship: :Ilarrator
and Listener in Interview, Based Studies
All nar:ative researchers attcnc to the research
relationship, but those whose ,tudes ~re based on
in.depth iJ:tefviews aim spccifirnll y at transform-
lng the interviewe:-interv:ewee relationship into
one of narra:D: and listener, This hvolves a shift
in understanding the nature of interview
tions and answc,s, These researchers often iIIus,
trate Ih is sh itt by telling about how they initially
ignored, grew impatient with, or got thrown off
track by interviewees' stories-and later realized
thel; mistake (Anderson & Jack, 199]; Mishler,
1986; Narayan & George, 2002; R:essman, 1990,
2002a), For instance, in Narrating the Orgurtiza-
ti:m, Czar:Ji~w"ka (1997) described how she used
to a"k questions that encouraged interviewees to
genera lize and compare t"'ciT experiences, for
example, "What are the most acute prohlems you
are experiencing todart and "Can you compare
your present situation wilh that of 2 years ago?"
She found, however, that most people "won:d
n
break :hrough my structu:e by oEering stories
about th" background of current circumstances,
"This used to being me to the verge of pan :c-
'How to bring them to the point?'-whereas now 1
ha\'e at least learned that this is the point" (p, 28),
The moral uf Czarniawska's account, and of
s:milar accounts, is batt!:e sto:ies people tell con-
stitute t;11;; empirical material that interviewers
neec if they are to understand how people crea:e
meanings ont of events in :!1eir lives. To think of
an Interviewee as a narrator is :u make a concep-
tual shift away from the iC:ea that interviewe!:!s
have answers to researchers' questions and
tuwarci the idea that interviewees are namltors
wi:h ,tMit's to tell u:1d volces of their own,
Let me pause to say that tn:s idea need not
reflecllhe rOl:18ntic notion, critiqued by AlkiI:son

and Silverman (1997), 6at "the open.ended
interview :he opportunity for an authentic
gaze illto the soul of another" (p. 305). Similarly,
Gubrium and Holstein (2002) critiq t:cd the
:1O:ion of a ;1arratnr's "ow:t" volfe. wh'ch Implies
trw: narrators' stories arc :10: sodally mediated.
I contend that conceiving of an interviewee
as a narrator is not an interest ir: the other's
"authentic" self or t:nmediated voke but rather
an interest in the other as a r:arrator of his or her
particular biogra:Jhical experiences as he or she
understands the:n. Although any narration is
.
ahvavs enabled and constrained by. a host of sodal
circumstances. duril;g interl'iew$ the r:arrative
researcher needs to orient to :he piirticularity 0::
narrator's story and voice.
T!;is conceptual shift has consequerces
for data collection (as well as for interpretive
processes, which I will get to next). W'1en
[C'searcllers conceive of interviewees as narrd'J'[l!,
they not ouly allend to the stories that people
happen to tell during interviews but also work at
invirir,g stories. AIt:,o'Jgh ~ome interviewees teL
stories whether or not researchers want to hear
them, other ir:terviewees might not take up the
part of na!'rator unless they are specifically and
carefully invited to do so.
Paradoxically, ass'Jmpt~ons embedded in
our "interview sodety" may discourage intervie·
wees from becorr:ing narrators in the sense tl:at
I am develop'ng that idea here. l}enzin and
Lincoln (2000) suggested that we live "in a
society whose members seem to believe that
intCfvi('ws ge:1erate usrfu: information about
lived experience and its meanings" (p. 633; see
also AtkinsOI: & Silverman, 1997; Gubrium &
Holstein, 2002). Yet :nterviewees often speak in
generalities rather than specifics, even when
talking about their experien.;;es, because they
assume (often acwrately 1 that researchers are
imerested in what is general mther than particu·
lar about their experience (Weiss, 1994). As
Czarniawska r1997) s:ated, researcher;; often "ask
peop:" in the field to compare, to abstract, to gen·
eralize" (p. 28). Sacks (1989) called these "sodo·
logical ques:ions"questions that a~e organized
arollnd 6e researcher's, interest in general social
Chase: Narrative Inquiry 111 661
processes-even though the nestions TallY be
coucbed in everyday language (p. 88). When
researchers sociological question s, they are
likely to get sociological ans\"ers-generalities
about the interviewee's or others' experiences, Tie
interview questions that qualitat've researchers
include in appendixes to their studies show how
often they enwurage inb:r v;ewe~s tu s?eak
generally and abstractly. Ib
How, then, do narrative researchers :nvite
interviewees to become narrators, that to tell
stories about biograp~ical particulars thaI are
meaningful 10 them? I have described th:, as
a matter of framing the interview as a whole wilh
a broad question about whatever story the mlrra·
tor has to tell about the issue at hand (Chase,
1995b, 2Q031. This requires a certaIn kind of
preparation hefore interviewing; it requires
knowins what is "storywurthy" in the narrator's
sodal sett!ng, an idea that is most easily grasped
through examples from 110n- Western cultures.
Grima (: 991), for ins:ance, found that Paxtun
,,'Omen in Korthwest Pa;"istan attributed ~he most
value to stories of ,ufferi ug and p~fsomd hard·
ship and that these I>tOf:es were intimatdy COil'
nected to a:l honorable ident it y. If a woman had
no such experiences, she had no story to tell.
Similarly, in RosalMs (I976) anthro?o~ogical
tie:dwork with Tukbaw, an Ilongot man in the
Philippines, thl: researcher told of realizing that
he had cUllle duse to "assuming that every man
has his life story within him" ll:1d that the narra
tor himself "5hould he t:'lC subject of the narra·
tive''' (pp_ 121-122)_ Although Tukbaw had plenty
of stories to Ie:!, these Wesler:l assumptions about
na;rative5 were unfamiliar to him,
Although broad cultural assumptions condi·
hon narrators' vok~s and tbe storie, they have to
tei:, so do specUlc institutional, organizational.
and/or discursive environments (Cubrium &
Holstein, 2001). In my study of women school
superintendents. for example, the :hat they
are highly successful women in an overwhelm-
ingly whi:e- and n:ale-dominated occupation
shapes their work narratives and makes them
storyworthy in a particular way, The~r work nar·
:atives revolve around the juxtaposition hetween
662 II HANDBOO;;;: OF QL:AUTATIVE RESl'ARCIi-CHAPTER
thet r individt:al aceo rn plisi:Jnents, on the onc
band. and the gendered and racial int'quities
they face in tbei r p:-olession, on the mher, and
this juxtaposition makes their wo;k narratives
ir:~eresting not only to re;,earchers and the gen-
eral puhJ:c bUI also to themsc:vcs (Chase, 1995a.
pp_ A-IS), Once a researcher has a sellbe of the
broad parameters of the s:ory that Ibe I1arrat()f
has to teil-of what is s:ofY''Vorthy given the
narrator's sodd location in his or her culture,
commu:1ity, andfor organizatiunal setting-lile
resl'arc::ter can prepare for narrative interviews
by ,j (,velop ing a broad quest] on that will im :te
the other to tell his Uf ~t!r s:ory (Cha~t:, 1995b) ,
The poi m. of course, is not to ask for II "formda
story" (toseke, 2001); in:;fcad, the researcher
needs :0 know the parameters of the story that
others s:mHarly situated couiti tell so as tn invite
this person's story.
In some cases, it may be easy to tlgurc out
how lu frame :he inler\l:ew as fl W:l0;"'; it t:1ay
be e!lsy to ar~iculate a broad open question that
wEI invite a persoll<l] narrative_ ; n my study of
women S'Jperintendents, the question abml! their
career hi~t()ries I u:ned out to be piYO la:. (! confess
Iha: J did not Undt:'fstalld it this way at ttle time
a:td that my corc5earcher, tui:ecn Bdl. and
( asked ple:uy sociological questions along the
way.) But it is not alway> so easy to know what
the broad question will For example. Sacks
(1989), i:1 ber ethnograph:c study of working
class won:!;'Il',5 militancy and :cadership in the
workplace, wncHeted int.:rvicw" t,) llndc-rsta:1d
th" mnnC(tion between what womea learned
from their families and f;om their work?lace
miiitar:cy, After her sociological interview qU;;:,5-
tions prodnced dead ends, she finally began to
ask "how :hey learned about wu:k am::' what it
m~<lnt to them:' She realized that this question
invited stories that showed how "family learning
emp()weT~d women ;0 rebe:" (1',88).
Being prepared to ill\'ltc a slory. however, is
only pa~t of the shift :n the resear(h relationship,
Burgos : 1989) described a transfo:rn;dioll that
may occur when all interviewee takes up the
invitation to become a narrator:
A life slory (urn.:, oE successfully whell ils carraror
e;;ercises her power upon the l1ers0;: whu is o,tm-
s ibly conducl'::g :he by derealising his
interventions, capturing his allention, ntJ',:"llizing
hi, will, arousing h:s desire to learn SOn:~thillg ellie,
Of somclhing ::Jore, ban what would be allowed hy
the logic of :he narrative (p, n;
'this Mat,'me111 otlers a stro:1g version of
narrator's voice as well as o£ the researcher's
listening; :n speaking from and about bio-
graphical particulars. a narrator may disrupt
the assm:lptiollS Ihal the in~ervie\\'er brings to
tbe r<'seaxl: relationship. Thus, narrative inter-
viewing invo:ves a p<lradox, On the one band,
a researcher r:eeds to he well prepared to ask
good questions that wEI invite ~hc other's par-
:ic ular stOT y; on the other hand, the very idea
of' it particlliar story i:; that i: ca:lnot be known,
predkted, or prqt\;ed for in advance, The
narrator's particular story is rtOt idelltical to-
and JT:t\y even depart rad:cally from-what is
"~:oryworthy" j n his or her social conlex:.
An example call be found in my own research,
As Colleen Be] and I interviewed a woman super-
ir:tendellt who was leaving her joh for a pres-
t:giolls and less stressful position, she showed
us fam il, photographs and began to lell slories
about a family rr:cl:tber who had a serious
phys:cal disabil:'y. At the lime. r experienced this
a~ a digre:;sion from her work narrative, ar.d
I waited ?,It icntly for her to gel back to il_ Later, as
I revieweri the :n:erview tape~, J rea:ized Ihal her
sharing of family photos and stories was integral,
not ::;:>eripheral. to her work narra:i Ife; her rareer
move "down;' away fron: the exhau,"ing atd very
public work of the 8uperir.(endency. WaS for her a
move toward a rr:ore ba:anced work-family rda-
tionship, If r had heen open 10 understand:r:g the
family photos and stories as central to her work
narrat iiie, 1 might h.lYt: prompted for and heard a
fuller acconnt of the p[uticular way i rl which Il:is
won:ar: narra:ed her career history. She was
speaking in a Cifferent voice, or from a different
subjcc: position, from w'1at [ had anticipated; she
di sTupted my aS5unptioll about the '"logic" a
career narrative,

The rnterpretive Process
in Interview-Based Studies
W:U:l1 it comes to interpreting narratives hCllrd
during interview;" n,mative researchers bcgi:1
with narrators'vuicl;;s and Slor ies, thereby extend-
ing t:,e :mrator listener rclatiom,hi? nEd the
active work of listening into the interpretive
p;oces>. This is a move away from " traditional
theDe·oriented T:lethoc of analyzing qualitati'le
mat"ria!. Raber than locating distillct berne>
across 1:1terviews, Darrative :-esearchers listen first
to the vnicr;; within each narrative."
r ~ealizcd the :m porlance o~ this shift as I
interpreted the women ,uperintend<.'nts' inter-
views. At first, I tried to organize ,he transcripts
intu themes about work (e,g,. asp' rations, compe·
ter:ce, confidence; and themes about inequality
(e,g" barrie:s, discrimination, responses). But [
soon fil1l11c that it was difficult 10 separate a
woman's talk about work and her talk ahollt
inequality; rina]y it dawned 0:1 me that there was
a connection between a woman's construction
of self in on(" story (e,g., about her individual
st:-ength as a competent :eader} and her construc·
tion of self in other stories (e.g" <lJont her indi·
vidual strel:gtn :n fighting discrimination), Th1:8,
I began to focus ell: connectiol1s a:nong the vari·
ous stories thai a woman tole over :he course of
the interview. J u~ed the term narrative strategy to
refer to the s?ecific way in wr.kh each woman
juxtaposed her stories ahom achievement and
bel stories about gendered and/or :-adal inequal-
ities, that how she n3vig,,:cd the disjunction
hetlvcen indiv:dualistic discourse about achieve·
ment and group-oriented d:sc(Jurse about
inequality :Chase, 1995a, pp. 23-25). T"Ie term
narrative strategy draws attention tll trH; com-
plexity within each woman's voice-to the various
subject positions each woman take" up-as wet:
as to diversity among women's voices btx:ause
each woman's narrative strategy is pad,dar,
Na::nltive researchers who base their work on
lntervk",,'s use a variety ()f methods to: listen·
ing 7o-for interpreting-complexity "nd multi-
p;icity within :larrators' vokeS. For example, in
Chl:s/;,: Karmtive Inquiry 111 663
their stt:dy of adolescent girls ~at risk" for early
pregnancy and dropping uut of school, Taylor,
Cilligan, 3:1d Sullivan (199S) d~scribed an explic.
itly femin ist Listening Guide tbat requires reading
each interview four tines. Pirst, they attended
to "t!ce overall shape the narrative <lnd the
researdl relationship"; second, to the narrator's
first -person voice-how and where she uses ''1'';
third anc fourth, to "contrapuntal voices"-vokes
that t'ltp:ess psychological development, un ;he
one ha:1d, MC psychological risk and 1m,';, oe the
other (pp_ 29-31). In contrast, Barr:herg (1997)
focused 011 three ~evds of narrative pos:tioo lng:
how narrntu[s position self and others (e.g., as
pfOtagonis7s, as antagonists, as vicliJl1~, as per?,,·
l~ator8), no-.\' narf'dtors position self in relation to
the audience, and how nar:ators "position them-
selves to themselves;' that CQnstruct [local 1
an~wer to the question 'Who am (p_ 337).
li: one way or anuther, then, narrative
researchers lis:el': to the narrator's voices-:o the
subj eet positions, ir.tcrprl'tive practice;:, amhigui-
ties, and complexitks-wirllil1 each r: armtor's
story; This p:ocess usually i ndudes attention to
the "narrative :i:lkages" til r,: a storyteller develops
between the biograph;,,,1 particulars of bis or her
life, on the one hand, and the re,;oun;es and
cons:raillts in his or her envi moment filr self
am: reallt y construction, 011 the orne (Holstein &
Gubr: J m, 2000, p. 1081. Rather than t: nitary, fixed,
or authentic ,elves. these researchers suggest that
narrators construct "rJOllUrJitary .ubjectivities"
(Jlloom & Munro, 1995), "revised" idenlities
(Iossdsnn, : 9'l6b ), "permanently lI:1settled identi-
ties" (Stein, 1997), and "troubled identities"
(GJbrinm d;; Ho;stein, 2001),
Researchers'Voic!!s
and Narrative Strategies
[mpHdt in my di~cllssitn; of how the
researcher listens to the narrator's voke-both
uuring the interview and while :n:e:preting
the researchers voice. He:'!:', J rerum to issues
I raised under the fifth analytic of
voice, interpretive a JthOfil y, and rcpre~eIltalioJl.
664 II HA,\DROOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-UiAPTfR 25
To sort out a range of possibilities, r d~velop a
typology of three vo:ces or narrative strategies
that contemporary narrative researchers deploy
as they wrestle with the question of how to use
:he:r voice(!i) to interpret and represent the nar·
:ator's voice(sJ. My typology is not an exhaustive
and rigid classification of every possible natralive
strategy; rather, it is a flexible device for under·
standing the diversity in narrative researchers'
voices. I n practice, researchers may move back
and forth among them.
The Researchers Authoritative Voice
Many narrative researchers de\'elop an "athor-
ilative voke in their writing, inch:rling those I just
described in the section on interpretiye processes
in interview-based studies and those [ des crib,:.:
previous:y in the sec:ioll on diven.e approadles as
taking psychological <lnd sm:iologica. approaches
(the tlrst three approach~s), Tl:is r:arrative strat-
egy conn !:'cts and Sf?aratcs t:"e researche!"s and
Ilarrator's voices in a particcJar way. Sociologists
!Isl:ally presen: long stretches fron narrators'
stories or long excerpts of naturally oecu rring
conversation, followed by their interpretations.
Psrc~ologisls are mure likely to otfer long ,t:m·
maries nf narrators' stories, followed by their
interpretations. In each case, in tb~ texts bey
create, researchers connect or intermingle ~hejr
voices with narrators' voices,
At Ihe san:e time, these researchers separate
their voices from narrators' voices :hrough thei:
iIlLerpretation~. They .sser! 3:1 authoritative
interpretiye voice on :he grot:nds that they have a
diffe:ent interest from the naI raOOrs in the Il<!rr<!-
tors' stories. Fo, example, during "n itterview,
both narrator and listener are interested in deve!-
uping 6<: fullnes:; and particularity of the narra,
tor's stocy, bl when it corr:es to interpreti og, the
researcher tllf:lS to how and 'Nlla! questions
open up part'rular ways of unders:anding wha:
tr.t' narrator is communicating through his ur
her story. Theiie questions are ab(JlIt nanat!ve
processes that narrators ty?ically take for grantee
as they tell their storifs mch as their :J se of cul-
tural, instirutionlll, 0, organi7.alional discourses
for making ;sense cf experience, their developmer:t
(If narrative ~trategies or :1arrative Ii nkages 1:1
relation to conflicting discourses, their co:nmuni·
cation of meaning through linguistic features of
talk, and/or their reconstruction of psychological
i~sues through particul<lf :netaphors Of subju-
gated swrylines {Brockmeier & Carbaugh, 2001;
Capps 8< Ochs. 1995; Cha~e, 1996; Gubrium &
Holstein, 1997; Hinchman & Hinchman. 200 I;
Holstei:! 8< Gubrium, 2000; Oc:~berg, I ')9(i;
Rosenwald & Ochberg, 1992),
By wding with an authoritative voke, these
rest:archers arc Ii uillemble tu the aitici SOl that
they "privilege rhc ~.nalysfs listening ear" at the
narrato,'s expense (Denzb, 1997, p, 2491_ After
ai:, as narrators work to n:ake sense of their expe-
rienees thro'Jgh narratiol~, tl:ey do not talk about
selves we live by:' "id<::ntity work;"'r:or:U:1t-
tury subjectivities;' "discursive cons:raints;' or
"hegemonic discourses:' Nor do researchers talk
this way as bey narrate slories ;n their eyeryday
lives. But I prefer (in part because my work filS
here) to understand these researchers as making
visible and audible taken·for-grallted practices,
?:-ocess,,~, and structural and cu 1mra1 features of
ou, everyday social worlds, The soc;o:ogical con-
CCplS that rescarcne;s deve:op serve that aim.
Ociberg (1996) art;culaled this point fIOm a psy-
chological perspective: "Interpretation reveals
what one [the r.arrator I might say :f Or.ly one
could speak h;cly, bl: t we am see this only if we
are willing to look beyund what our informants
h
tell us:n so many wurds (p. ':18),
By tai<ing up an au:horitative sociological or
psychological voke, the rescarch"r speaks differ-
ently from, but 1:ot disrespectfully of, tr.e :lorra-
tor's \'oi(e, Czarniawska (2002) sUllgested t~ at
"the .justice or injustice done to the original nar-
rat:ves depend,;; on tr.c attitude of the researcher
and on t'1e precautions he ur she takes" (p, 743),
In Ciscussing "narrative responsihility and
respect;' she recommended that researchers
atlcnd to dh'ersity il: the stories that various nar·
ratofs tell, tn dominant and r1 argina! feaCings of
narralors' stor:es, a:ld to narrators' :esponses
(including opposition) to the researchers' ir.tcr·
prelatiuns (pp. 742-744V' It bears emphasizing

:nat wi:er. the$e researchers present extensive
quotations from :luraturs' s:ories, they make
room for readers' alternative interp:-etations
(Las:ett.1999; Rks~man, 2(02).
nle Rese.ircher's Supportive Voice
At t~e other end of <Ill imag:nary con:inuum,
some narrative researchers develop a mppor..ive
voia; 13at pushes the narrator's :!1to the lime-
ligit. This is character:.!!c of I.atin A:nericar. tes-
timonios, For e:<ample, ill 1 Rigoberta Mer:r:hu; An
indian hii11ul1! ill Guatemala (Mendul, 1984),
translator, Ann Wright, ofTered a short preface, and
anthropologist Elisabeth Burgos-Debray Wf(n~ an
introcllct'on ir: which she described how ,h c mn·
ductec and edited the hterv!ew. with Men eM.
But tte majority uf the book consists of MeneM's
unintefnlPlro stories. Diar:a M iloslav:ch Tupac
developed a sjrniJar~y soppmtive voice as editor
and annotator of the work ane a·.ltohDgraphy uf
t:1artyred Peruvian activist Maria Elena lvfoya:lO
(Moyano, 2000). 5ignifie3l;tiy. these two test·
:monioii muned the narrators-Meneilli anc.
Moyano-as the bocks' authors. Olh<:~ tt'S'
tirnonios, especially those that include two or T:lOre
narrators, name the resea;chcfs as the authors
(e.g., Randall, 19111, 199':',2003).
Researchers W:10 publish oral btories or lite
histories may al~o use a muted ~upp(l[tive
For instance, in Shostak's (1981J200lh) ir:t:uduc-
tion <1:1d epilogue to Nisa: The lift and lA'lJrds of a
!Kung Woman, sce described her research with Nisa
and :he !KU:lg people, and sce began e"<lch chapter
with anthropolQ!lical ;,;ommcntary. But the major'
ity of :he book consists of Nj~a8 sturies aso
31alll1er, 1989; Gwaltney. 198011993; ':erkel, (995),
When resea~chers present performance nar-
:'atives, they may also deploy supportive vokes,
~or exarr:o!e, Mad:son (1998) Jeseribed a theatr:-
I:al rerformance of the personal narrativES of
two women cafeteria workers who led a strike
for bClrc~ pay and worki ng conditior.. at the
University of North Carolina. Although the strike
took place in ~ 968, the public p<'rtormance of the
narratives took p~ace 25 years later to a packed
audiena; durj):g the university's blcentennlal
Chase: Sma:!ve inq'Jiry III 665
celebrat:or., Both women were in the audlem:e,
and after the pcrforr:1ance they received "a
thU!1derOl:' and :engthy standhg m'at:or." (p, 280)
as well as attt'ntion froll: the media. On the
occasion of the performam.:c, the rC$earcher's voice
as interviewer and editor of the women's narra-
tives was muted; the perfonr.a:1ce high lightec
t':1e women's voia;s and opened possibilities tIlT
pulitical and civic engagement on the part of the
WUlllell, the audience, and the performers'!·'
In eacl: of these cases-tt:~timonin, o,al
1-: i ,tory, life history, and performance narrativc-
In c researcher {and translator, who is 80:11£-
:imcs-but not always-the same person}
makes (,ecisio:!' about how to translate and (far.-
seri be the narrator's story, which parts. of the
story to include in the fi :1<11 product, and huw to
orga:1izl" a:'ld cd itt hose parts into a lext or pe:for-
mance.And hecause the goal of this na:mtive
strategy is 10 hring the narrator's story to the
public-to the :1<J:rator's story heard-
researchers du not L:suallr dwell on how they
~ngaged i:J these i nlerpre!i ve processes, Or i r1hey
d(., t1ey do so elsewhere, Por exa:nple, in an arti
de written after ,visa was puhl:shed, Shostak
(1989) discussed the co:nplcxitlcs of these in:er-
prelive decisions, induding the way in which sce
presented three voices in thl;' book: Nisa's
persml voke, Shostak's anthro?Qlogical vuice,
and Shostak'$ voke "as a young American woo;an
eX?eriencing another world" (pp. 230-231 ). A:ong
somewhat diffe:ent :infs, )1adiso:1 (1998,
FP, 277 - 278) explained tht' idea of the "perfo; ~
mance of possibilities;' which undedes perfor-
mance narrative~ and which provides a strong
framework during the perform,mcc irselt:
These researc'1ers rr:ay encountc: the criti-
cism that they romanticize the nar;ator's voice as
"authentic" (Atkinson & Silverman, 1997). At its
best, however. this r:arratve strategy aims not
for establishing authenticity but rather for creat·
ir.g a sclf-re"lective and respectfu; distance
betwee:'l researchers' and nar"nors'voices. There
is a time and bere is a place, thes!' researchers
might say, for hig.hlighting narrators' voices alid
IIIUV ing tem ?orar'ly tu the margins the ways
: n which researchers (alur.g with a host of social,
661': III HA)llJliOOK Of QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
cultural. and !:istori'al drwmstances) have
already wlldi :ioncd those voices,
The Researchers Interaaivf' Voice
A th i rd ;1 aru Ih'e ;;trategy displays the
cDmplcx illteractionthe intersub;'ectivi~y­
between researchers' and narrators' vokes. These
rescarchers exa:11ine their voices-their subject
POS'1 i0:15, sucial locations, interpretations, and
personal experiences-through Ihe refracted
medium of narrators' vokes, This r.arrative ~1rnt­
egy char'lCte~izcs narrati ~'e ethnographies as well
as some alllocthllographies,
Frank (2000) used thl> narrative strategy
in Venus (III Whee/$: Two Dea.des of Dialogue
(m lJi$abi!i~J!, Biography. and Being FernlJie ill
Ameri~a, in w:llch ~he presented her long term
relatiomhip w1:h Jiant! l}eVries, a woman who
was Jorn withen;; arms and legs, Fra:1k 110t only
presented De Vries's stori es aboul living witl: her
disabilil}' but also im'cstigatd own h:terest in
DeVries's stmics:
In c~oosing :0 w~ite about the life of Di~ne DeVri,,:;,
I ::a(i to ask my~elf how it was tha:. as an anlhr~l­
pU[(lgiSl.1 chose lIot:O telve] to some remOI" place,
but 10 ~lay at home s:uJy one individual. one
with a congenital.bsellcc of' limbs. (p, 115)
Through reflection on of others'
Cisabilitie-. her own disabilities. and e:notional
lack and 10s;3 in her own life, Frnnk realized thar
"I had c"pected :0 find a victEm :n Diane" but
ir:stead "ound "a survh'or" (p, 87),
1:1 :eres tingly. in Return to Nis/J, Sh05 :ak
(2I)OOb) l'evdoped the ,amc narrat! VI;! strategy
while moving in the opposite geographic direc-
HOI:. Whereas Frank needed to u:1de::stand why
she chose to at homtl;' Shostak :1eeded tn
uncerstand why. after being diagnosed with
hrea,t cancer. she felt cOr:1?elled to leave her
husband and t!:ree young children to spend a
mOllt!: in Botswana with Nisa and the olher
!KJ:.ng people WhUI:l she had not seen for
14 years. In Remrn to /liisa. Shostak wro:e not
only about Nisa's Ii te duri r.g :he intervening
),ears but also abol: ~ hcr own cOr:1plex interest in
reconnecting w:th ~iSll, who (among other
things) is a well-respected healer,
In narrative ethnographies and autoetl:nogra·
phies. rese'drdlers make themselves vulnerable ill
the texl (Bebn; 1996; Kr:eger, IWI) ,: 'hey i ndude
extensive discussions Df thei r emol ions, t1:o'.lghIS,
research relationships, thdr ur.stable inler-
p:etive decisions. Tn"y include err:barras,ing and
even shameful' nciCcnts. I:tdeed. these researchers
are vulnerable to the criticism that they are
indulgent and that Ihey ai~ <Iifty hmnJry that
:1obody ,'fanls 10 see. Yet they grmmd these prac·
tices in the idea th"t researcne,s need to llnder·
stand themselves if they are to understand hm~
Ihey in:erpret narrators' stories .md that readers
11eed to ur:derstand researchers' stories (about
their intellectual ami personal relalion&hips with
r:arralors as wei: as with the cultural phenomena
at ha:td) J readers are !O under~tand :1arrators'
smries, rh~se researchers aim to Ilndern:ine tire
mytl: ot the invisible omniscient author (1'h:r:1CY.
2002; Tierney & Lincoln, 1997).
The Particular and the General
Despite dJferences in thcir narra"v" s:ralegies
for 'r:terpreting ilt1C representing mmators' voice;,
narratlve rcscarC:U;fs bave in commOll practice
of dC'ioti:1g mu,h more spac!! in the:r written work
10 fewer individual s thar: do other qnalitlltivc
researchers, Many anthropologists have writ:en
books based on one bdividt:al's life story
Beh<.r. 1993/2UU3; Crapanzano, 1980; l"rank, 2000;
Shostak, 1981J200Ua,2(1Uubl,2) . And elanv . sociolo-
gists, psycholog:,;ts. and other niolHioIUve researchers
have based books, book chapters, and artides 01: II
slI:alJ number of ;lanalive;; (e,g.. Bell. 1999; Bobel,
:l()02, chap, I; Capps & Ochs, 1995; Chase, 19953,
20m; DrVault, 1999, cha;:!. 5; Ferguson, 2001,
pp, 135-161; Josselson, 1996b, chaps. 4-7;
Langellier, 200 L; Lempert. 19':14; Lid!Ow, 1993,
pp, 25: -309; Lt:ttrcll, 2003, chap, 4: .vlishler, 1999;
Riessman, 1990, chap. 3; Rosier, 2000; Stromberg,
1993, chaps, 36; Wozniak. 2002, (haps. 2 and 9).
The question of whether and how ar: ll:ci-
vidual's narrative (or a small group 0:' individuals'
na;ratives) represents a I;Hgcr populatiun gOtS

back to lire Polish Peasant. Thomas and Znaniecki
(L9L81l927) argued that sociologists should
gather life histories of Iud: viduals W:'10 represent
the popula:ion being 8tud:ed Ipp, 1834-l835).
They defendC'c thdr extC:15ive use ofWiszniewski's
life record by claiming that he was "a typical rep-
resentative of the culturally passive ma:>& WJich,
under the present cor:ditions and at the present
s:age of social evolution, con. lit utes in every civ i-
Iized society t'1e enor:nom majority of Ihe popu-
lation" (p. 1907L in evaluating The Poli,h Peruar.t,
however, Blumer (1939/1979) claimed that
Tl:omas and lnaniecki had failed to den:onstrate
lNiszniewsk:'s representativeness and bat it
wn:!Ic have been difficult for thcmlo do 50 anyway
IP,44).
Contemporary narrative researchers occupy a
different soda~ ar:d historical location_ Onder :he
auspices of the narc:ative turn, they ;e; ect the idea
that the small nur:lber uf nar;atives they present
mlst be generalizable to a certai:1 pop'JlatOl:.
Some researchers do this by highlighting the
particularity of t:1e narratives they present and
by pladng ttem in a broader f:-ame, For example,
Shostak's !Visa is about one woman's narrative, but
Shostak ( 19(9) used the stories of the other !Kung
women she interviewed, as well as previuus
attl:ropologkal studies of t':1e IKung people, to
show how Nisa's story is at once uniqne in some
respects and similar to other !Kunl! women's
slories in other ,,"ays.
Many contemporary narralive researchers,
however, make a stronger break fron: Thomas and
Znaniecld's (I918iI927) po~itivist stanc~ ~egard­
log ;:epresemativeness. Given "narrative elasticity"
and the ra:rge of "narrative options" in any partic-
ular setting (Holstein & Gubrium, 2000), as well as
coustant flux i:1 social and historical condit'or:s,
these researchers propose tilat the fal:ge of narra-
tive possibilities within any group uf people is
potentia:':y limitless. 'Ib make matters more COlH-
plex, as Gubrh::m and Holstein (2002; suggested,
"'Jreating subject positions and their associated
vokes seriously, we might find that an ostensibly
single interv:ew could actually be, :n practice, an
intt'rview w':'1 :;everal subjects, whose particular
identities may be only partially dear" (p. 23).
Chase: Narrative Inquiry 1111 667
Thus, many contemporary narrative '''''0'''''-'-
ers approach any narrative as an il'lst,mce of the
possi',le relationships between a narrator's active
constructioD of on the one hand, and the
socia~, cultural. and ~i5lorical circum&tances that
enable and constrain that narra;[ve, 011 the other.
Researchers often highlight a range uf possible
narratives to show that no one part'cular story is
determined by a certain social location, but tl:ey
do not claim ~hat their studies exhaust the poss:-
';1i1ities wi:hin that ;;ontext (see, e.g., A~erhach,
2002; Bell, 1999; Chase, 1995a; Mishler. 1999).
From this perspective. any narrative is significant
because it embodies-and gives us insight
into-what is possible and :nteLigible with in a
specific social context: 1
l1li NARRATIVE INQUIRY
A'ID SOCIA;, CHA1\GE
As outlined by Den zin and Lincoln, a major goal
of this edition of the Handbook is exploring how
qualitative research clln "advance a democrat;,
project committed to social jllstice in an age nf
uncertainty" (personal com municatiol1, July 7,
2002). With that goa: h: mind. [ r:ow turn to qUes-
tions about the relatio:lship bdwcen narrative
inquiry und social change, What kind~ of narra-
tives disrupt oppressive sodal processes? How
and when do researchers' analyses and represen-
tations of others' stories encourage social justice
and democratic processes? And for whom are
these p:ocesses disrupted and encouraged?
Which audiences need to hear which researchers'
and narrators' stories?
For some people, the act of oarmtil:g a
signjficant life event itself fadli:atcs positive
change. In d;scussing a breast cance, surv'vor's
narrative, LangeUie; (200:) wrote, "The wounded
storyteller reclaims the capacity to telL and hold
on to, her uwn story, resisting narrative surrender
to the medical chart us the ottIeial story of the
illness" (p. 146; st'e also Capps III Oehs, 1995;
Frank, 1995}. Along similar 1:n(;8, Rosenwald and
Ochberg (I 992) claimed that self-narration can
668 III HANDBOOK 01' Ql'ALlTATYF: RESEARCI1-CW\PTER
lea..: 10 personal ema:1ci?ation-to "better"
slories of lite difl:1culties or traumas. In these
cases, the narrator ls his or her own aucience, he
one who needs to hear "lternative versions of his
or her identity or li:e e\'ents, and the one for
who:ll changes in th~ narrative can "slir up
changes" in the Iile (p. see also Mishler, 1995,
pp, 108- .09).
tor other narrators, the urgency of swrytelling
arises from the r.eed a:1d des: re to have others
hear story. Citing Rene Jara, Beverle), (2000)
described !estimoni(ls as "emergency na:-rativcs"
that involve
a problerr: of repression, pm:er:y, margbalil y,
exp!o: tat ion, or ,urvival. .. , The voke
that spca;';s 10 the through (he :;:x( ...
Itakes J the form of ~,n I that demands to rec-
ognized, tilll: wants or needs to stake a claim on
our attention. (p,
But it is nnt only l,aUIl Amer:can testimo-
nio.:> that are na:Tated with this urgent voke. The
&tories of many rm.rginali~ed gmu?s have changed
the contempDrary narrath'!! lal;rlscapc-to name
just it ffl.", the &IOr~es of transgcndcred people,
people with disabilitie>, and the survivors of gen-
dered, racial!ethnic, and sexuai violence, lndeec.,
"giving voice" II) marginal :zed people am! "muni :lg
s:!enced Jives"have ;,een primary goals narrative
research ror ,evcral l:eC<ddes (McLaughlin &:
Tierney, 1993; Personal Narratives Group, 1989).
If a !Jrevio usly silenced l:arrator is to challeng<'
an audience's assumptions or actions effec\i veiy,
the audience mOl'! ready to hear th e narmtor's
5tery--or must be iolted into listening to it. In
writing about empathetic lislening. ?rank (20011)
staled, "Taking the other's perspective is a neces-
sary step in construct ive social change" (p. 94)_ In
a sinlilar vein, Gamson (2002) arg'Jed that story-
telEng "promotes empathy across .:itlercnt social
locations" (p. 189), Although l:e was w~iting about
media discourse on abortion, Gam sons argument
:. relevant to the narrative a?proarncs 1have been
di ,cuss i ng. Gamson resj sted the CTitiq ilC of
American popular media :lewspapers. tele-
vision) that they are too infused with personal
narr~ti',ies,BecaJ:se a:1 '.mwanted pregnancy is
ultimately a woman's problem, excluding stories
aboul that "existential dilemma" from media and
pol',}' discourse silellers wome:1 in pa:tklllar.
ThLl~, he argued :hat "ncnonalizatltJ11 . , , npens
discllr~ive opportunities" (p. 189). Gamson had in
r:1ind "deliberation and dialogue in a narrative
mode;' which (unlike abi>1ract argnmentl "lends
itself more easily 10 the expression of moral com-
plexit}?' In this s"nse, "storytdli:lg facilitates a
healthy democratic, public life" (p. 197).
During recent years, many na:rative researchers
have pushed be)und the goal of eliciting prevIously
silenced :1arratives. Tierney's (2000) description of
the goal life history re::earrh applies 10 oth.'{
forms of narrative research as well:
Life :~ is,o:;.;> arc !lc1pful nD: merely because they
add to the mix of wh,tl alread}' ext"" but beca'~se
(If tl:eir ability tll refashion identities, Rather t:,an ~
conservative go": based on no;;talgia 10, a paradise
lost, or a Hbc:al one of ellllbling l::CfC people to wke
their plaet"S at hu LHll1ity's :able, a goal ufllfe history
work in a postmodc;o ilge is te break the stranp"
;101d of "l<'lanaml lives that establi,shes rules of
:ruth, If'fli:i:nac .
- " ,v, and idenlilv, The wor" of life
:~:slory 'J(:Comes the investigation of the mediating
aspects of wltt::e, the interrogation of its gramr:1ar,
and the dcccn:cr:ng n;1;mS. (p, 546)
These statements offer a stror.g version of
wl:at I descrjbel:'. earlier 1:$ the researcher's
authontati,,!! voke. When re,earchers' interpretive
strategies reveal the stranglehold of oppress; Vi!
metanarral ives, they h,,]p to Op~1l lip possibilities
filf social chaLge. In this sense, attdiences need
to hear not only tl:e narrator's story, but also the
researcher's explication of how the narrator's
story is constrained by, and strains against. the
mediating aspects of culture (and of institutions,
organizations, and sometimes the social sciences
themselves). Audiences whose rr:embers jdentify
',vjth the narralnr's story nigh he moved by the
rcscard,cr's. interpre:ation to understand their
stories :lew and to imagine how they
could tell their stmies differently_ Aodiel:ce:>
whose members occupy t>ociallocations ditterent
fmm the narrator', might be moved through

empathetic listening to thi:lk and act in way;; that
beneli! the :lanator or what he or she advocates
(Madison, ]998, pp. 279-282).
What if the audience is hn,tile? DeVault and
!:lg:aham (1999) broached this issue: 'j\ radica:
challenge to silcm:i:1g is not only about having
a say,, but about talk!!!"0 back in the stror:>!est
~
sense-- say:ng the very things that those in power
resist hearing" (p. 184). When the aucliencc is
both powerful and :nvcsted in the status quo-
invested in oppressive metanarrative,-narra·
tors and narrative resear~hers may tn rn to
"culled\'e storie&~ which connect an individual's
story to the broader stury of a marginaEzed social
groap (Richa~ds<m, 1990). In di~cUS8i:lg the (01-
:ective ~torieS of sexual abuse survivors and gays
and :esbians, Plumr:ler (I995) wrote, "For narra-
tives to flourish, there :nllst be a community to
!:ear.... For cornmu oi:i<:5 tn hear, there must be
stories which weaye I(lgethcr ,heir history, the:r
identity, tll.:ir politics. The one-community-
feeds upou and into the other-slory" (1'. 87). rn
the face of a hostile and powerful audience, narra-
tllr~ strengthen their communities through narra-
tives and simuJlauclI:lsly seek to broadm thei:-
com muoiry of listeners. TtIU" collective stories-
or tcsti monios-become integral to social move-
ments (see aha Dav;s, 21l02). Howeyer, it is
impomnt to heed Naples's (20Q3) c~.utionary
notl;', In her analysill of how personal r.arratives
function ill the social movement of childhood
sexual abuse survivors, she argued tlat we must
dete;mint' when a:1d where varim,s strategies
of ,pe2k~ng fron personal expe:ience arc more
effective and less effective in challenging oppres-
siQT: (p. 1I52l
Although discussion of social movements
and :esliJllon ios e\'okes Ie e need for large~8cale
social change, we abo need to consider th", role
of narratives and narrative research in small·
.cale, locali,ed sodal change. Por exa:nple, in
Auerbach's (2002) study of :atnofLatina parent
:[lvoJvement in a college access progra r:l tor
:he:r high ,chool chikren, sat: heard ma:1Y
parents tell of poor Ircatmen: at the hands of
school personneL Auerbach also observed that
the program gave parenls some opportunities to
l'amlive lr:quiry 11 669
share their storie~ !~llJlkly with each other and
tbat sometimes this public performance of thei r
stories led to collective problerr: solving (p. 138:).
Equally :mport<lnt, A"Jerbach pointed to the
OCfC for such program& to Cfeate third ':lace"
that "disrupts the official discourse and scripted
behavior that normally domi nates school even:s
parer.:s, jllst as it does in dassrooms thr
students" (p. 1386). In other words, such pro-
gra ms hold the promise; of c:eatin g con di ~
Ii ons :hat woule allow school acministrato:li,
teachers, and counselors to hear parents' narratives
so tl:at school staff can be jolted into !"esisling
metanarratives tha: usua'ly prevail in their work
environments-immigrant families of color arc
uninterested ill their children's educatior:. immi·
grant childrer. of color have limited educatiunal
potential. <lnd so furth (see also Kusier, 2000).
Al:erbilch suggend that :esearchers can help to
create pcb:ic in whle:' r.1arginalized
people'; narratives can be heard ever: by those who
normally do not wanl to hear them.
II NARRATlVE I~Q'.JIRY:
A FIELD IN MAK:'1G
In "1)1 narrative, I have at:~mptec :0 give shape to
6e :na~sive material !!-tat can be ,ailed narrative
inqairy, identifying irs contours lind complexities
and argt:ing for the idea that it constitutes a 8ub-
field within qualitatiw i r.q uiry even amid its mul-
tiplicity. Here I raise; sume issues-in 6e form of
a set of relationships-that I believe are pivotal to
the ft: rure of th is field.
F:rst is the :ela tionship betwecr: theore
tical and methodological work wilhin narrative
'nquiry. Karrativc theorists point out that narra-
tive research is embedded in and shaped by broad
socia: and his;oricaJ currents, iJarticularly the
ctbiquit y of p<:1'800al r:arratives i:1 conten: porary
West.:r:1 cultlre and politics-from television
talk shows, to politicians' speeches, to ,elf·· help
groups. Clough (2000} warned, however. that
the «trauma culture" we currently inhabit encour-
ages pruliferatioll of personal :larratives about
trouble and suffering without offering a theory
670 111 HANDBOOK 01' QUALlTA7TVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 15
and pobes of social change. Al or.g similar lines,
Atkinson and Silye~man ( 1997) and Gu brium and
Holstein (2002) poil:ted to the powerful tug of ou~
"illh:rview sociel y~ and they warned researchers
agains: Ihe romantic <lssllIT.:;tion :hat narrators
reveal "authen~ic" selves and speak in their "own"
voices, as jf their selves and voices were not
already mediated by the social contexts in which
they speak. I afgned earlier that treating interview-
ee~ as narrators does not mean succumbing to
those problematic assump:ions. Fiere, however,
~ suggest th at r:arralive researchers need 10 do
more, collectively, to integrate a critiqt:e of the
trauma cuiturelinterv:ew society with discl:I,Siri;l
of methodologjeal issL:es invulved cO;lducti ng
empirical research (e.g.. inv!:illg and interpreting
narmlllrs' stories). How do the:e two activities-
one theoretical and the other :netl1odological-
support each other and serve a joint pu:pose?
Wnat spedlic research practices produce narra-
tive research informed by a jroad slJdal cr: tiq ue
and a ]JoJi:ics of social change? Given the central-
ity of personal narratit>(' in many political, cul-
tural, and sodal ~.renas, narrative researchers
have much work to do and :U!lch to offer byway of
empirically g;ounded analysis and social critiqwe
ICrawley & Broad, 2004; Naples, 2003}. )/0 one
theoretical O~ empirical project can do every-
thir.g, of course, hut it sefm 9 to me that one key
lies ir: more conve,sation among narrative
researchers across theoretical and methodologi-
cal interests.
Second is tr.e relationship between Western
and rum-Western narrative theories and pmc-
tice~. Cubrium and Holstein (2002) suggested
that the interview society 'las gone glo'nl-that
people arou:1d the globe know w:,a: it means to
interviewed. Even Kisa, a member of the (!lntil
recently) hUllting and gathering !Kung people,
~nows how to place herself at the cen:er of a life
stOTY (Shostak, 198112000a, 2000b). At tne same
':lme, narrative researchers need to understand
cross-cn lrural diffe~ences more fnlly. What do
Western narrative researchers (and Westerners in
general) hilve to learn from the '''lays in which
non-Westerner> narrate the seJ, narrate group
identi:ies, or integrate folklo:e .oarrar£ves into
personal narratives (Grima, 1991; Narayan &
George,201}2; Riessman, 2002h) ~ if ~e1f Of identity
is not tne (c:1tral construct in (at least sOlDe) non-
Western narratives (Rosaldo, 1976). what i~? What
do flOfl- Western narrative researchers have to
leach their Wester:1 conntCf?arls abo'.!! the kinds
of narratives that r:eed to ·)C heard and about
inter:Jfetive and narrative ,trategies lUI' present-
ing and perlor:n ing them? What is the rellltion-
ship among narrative, narrative res<:arc~, and
s('lcial change ir. non-Western societies? f;or
example, what impact do Latin American testi-
monios have in the local communit;e;; from wn ich
they arise? I am not ~uggestillg Ibat Western nar-
ralJ.,'e researchers should take up residence in
non Western l(Jrnle~; rather, 1 am suggesting that
we r:eed to understand more fully how U1,;f
research is :mbuec with Western assumptior:s
about sdf and identity, Anthropologists may
be ahead of the game here, but :nncf: American
narrative research rem ains unreflective about its
Western character.
The third issue revolves arollnd 6e rclatio;')-
ship between narrative inquiry and technological
innovatio;1, Although it is hard to imagine nilHa-
tive researdl(;r5 g: \ling up the domain of lace
to-face interviewing and on-site gathering of nat·
urally occurring conversation, some researchers
have already rr.oved into ttf domain of virtual
researc!'! and many others will follow in their foot-
steps (Mann Ii< Stewart, 2002; see also Markham,
chap. 31. :his volur:le). How are e- mail, chat
groups, {mline support groups, 3r:d instant meS-
saging changing the mea:ling of"nalurally occur-
ring conversat[or;'? How are they creating r:ew
arenas for narrating the self and fo:" cOI:structillg
ident;ties, realities, relatio:lships, and communi-
ties? As narrative resean;hers ~~~plon: these Tlel'l
opportunities to hear people converse anc w
interview individuals "nd groups, wnat new risks
lind ethleal issues will they encounter? \¥hat neW
furms of knowledge will emerge?
Fourth, researchers interested in the n:lalion-
ship betwee:J narrative and sodal change neec
lu do mnre to address the issue of audience
(Lincoh. 1997). We need :0 think more abont
who co [lId benefit from, and who needs to hear,
(lur research :1arratives. Marginalized people in
the communities we study? Power brokers and
gatekeepers in the communities we s:udyr
Policymakers? Students in our . The
puhlic a~ :a:-ge? Other researcherll with:n our di~~
dptines and stIbstantive fiel tis of study? EqaaJ:y
important, ill my view, is the nl'.'d for nar;ative
researchers to explor(' ,he po~sibl<, poi l1t~ of
contact between rJarrtltors' stories and various
audiences whu need to hear them, 'What kinds
of s:ories (and what kirds of researci; Jlarra~
lives) i odte collec:ive action? And to what effect?
When do previously silenced narrators jolt
powerful-and init:ally hostile-audiences to
juin in :):<:aki ng the strangle:10:d of nppressive
metanarrative,5? And how can researchers ftelp to
creare the con dition, of err: pat ~ etic li stcni:tg
across ~ocialloca:iolls?
A101:g these lines, what do we have to lear;'}
<rom Ensler's (200t) w:1dly sllcces~fd Vagina
,\:folio/ague}? How did Ellsler transform inter ~
views with women abuut their bodies itl~o perlOr~
mances Ihal haVe sparked a mat.sive international
movement against violence against wom!:nl"
Sinilarly, what do we have to learn about writing
for the public from Ehrenreich's CWO I) best ~
seller, Nitktl and Dmu:d; 011 (Not; Getting By in
IWlerica? rn this mixture of u:ldercuve, reponing
a:1d narrative fthr,ography. Ehrenreich wrote
both seriouslv, and humorously, ahout her ef:or!s
to make ends meet tor a manti: at a t:me as a wah~
res. in Florida, a house deane: ir. Maine. and a
Wal-Mart employee in ;vlillllesota, Many of my
stncents claim that this text disrupts their attach-
ment to indiv:dllalist idco:ogies Ir: way" that o:her
texts do no:. I am not suggesting that we should
all a~pirc to off~ Broadway pcriofma:1CeS or to
besHellc:-dom for our work; rather, I am st:ggesj~
ing thai we need to !'link mOTe concertedly and
broadly about whom we write for a:1d speak to-
and how w~ do so, Flir many ot us, this may rrean
th:nking about how to create public spaces i:1 our
local communities where the pe::sonal nllrratiVl:S
and collective .tor[es of marginallzed people can
be heard by-ane can jolt out (if t'leir compla.
cency-those whQ !Xc uPf more powerful sabiert
positions and sociallocalions,
Pieall)" narrative rcr;earchers need to <l\tend to
In e relationship between nur w{)~k ;u:d Ihat of our
sodal science colleegJes wno work within o~her
traditions of inquiry, We need [0 treat o:her sodal
,ClerKe scholars as an :mportant audience for au:
work. We neec to der:lOnsl:atc that; mmersion in
the biograph :(al leIS uf Mills'8 trilogy-b:cgr "?ty,
history, and sociel:y~-prod'Jces new significallt
:oncc;ots
- and analvses , that other researchers in
{lur substantive areas and disci;:;lines need to do
their work welt For example. Lose;"e's (200 1) con ~
rcpt of tl:e "formula story" of wJi: abuse, and her
analysis (If its iJ:adequacy in capturing wlJl:u;n's
complex stor:es of domestic violence, ls crucial
10 work of other sodal SdCf1:ists··-_· whether
qua:1titative or quaHtdve-who study the 3UC~
cess or fail ure of hattered women's shelters i1: help~
ing women to leave ahusive p<:rtners. GC:1eraliy
speaking, narrative inqniry's contributions to
social science haw to en with concepts am: analy
se, hat demonstrall' IwO things: (a) the creativity,
complexity, and variability of individuals' (or
groups:) self and COIlSI ructions and (b 1the
power or historlLal, social, cultural. organjxa~
tional, dis.:ur~iye, interactional, anri!llr psychu~
lugical drn:.mstances in shaping the range
of possibilities for self and reality cons:tllction
in a:Jy particular time and place. Narrative
researchers need to confidently assert their con·
tributions to, their inter"!!Il!io:l' ill, and their
transformations of socia: Scit'fKe ,dmlarship.
As narrative :<:sea:chers grapple with the~e and
myriad other issues and questions, it is hard to
imagine argll:nent for the joint i nve5tiga~
lion 01 biograpny. society, ane history going out of
style. \"1'hat exactly that mear;s, Jowever, w'] likely
undergu many further permutations, disrupti ng
assmnptlo:1s that many of us now hu;d deal:
iii NOT:IS
J. [tbmk Norman Denzin. Y\,mmll Lincoln, James
Hu:stpin, Ru:hcl1e:l JosselsoQ, a::d (ath~rine Riessm:lll
:'in 1heir comments on earlier dr,d, til' :his ~hapter.
2, The Journal oJ Narrative and Lije History was
created in 1990, and it be,a:ne Narr"t1~e Inquiry in
672 VI HANDBOOK OF I)UALlTAI'IVE RESI'ARCH-CHAPTER
1998. As jmt two enm p:e~ of confe:'encei>, ill February
20(/3 the Ame ~kan liducational R<'Sear;:h As.~ociatiol1
held il Winter IlliititJ:e 011 Narrative lr:quiry ill Social
Science at the Ontario [IlS1 :Ime for Studies ill
EducaliulI, alld ill IV ay 2004 second biannual
liarraliv{' Matters conference Wil~ hdd at SL '''h,ima,
Lnivc"Tsrty ~~~! Ne,\' RrUi1sw:ck.
J. rOT overviews "I' early Jill, history methods in
i>I)lllU;J;Y, set: Be[ke~ (1966), Bcr[au:; (1981), Denzin
(1'1/01, anc. :)Iullllne~ ~1983).
4. The life history and life slory appmru:hes COil,
linue to be internatin:"l1 i;: The }ijO.~ BClard
ul Biugr aph}' and Sock·[ y, a research committee of the
Intern alional 5c;;lological Ass\,ciatiQII, i:' dudec
researchers frem mally European countr:es :t.' well as
fmm Japan, South Afrka, ,md Russia.
5. In i1dciirioll to summarizing interview da:a
gathered from w(mum about ch ildbearing,
child rear:ng, m,lrriage, housework, 11~ldw(jrk, and
comnmni:y partidpaliol1, Hagnod (I'nS) pre;,ented
nyu wome".', life slories in depth. This allows rcadres
to see the :'npac[ on Ihese two w"men's lives 0" Ihc
social and (:conOn:;c wndilions de,,,;~il'2d in
the ho:,k.
6. oveevkws earlv life h istorv m..:thods
~ ~
ir. c.:lth mpology, sec (1965), I,allgness and
rremk (1981 j, a:ld 'A/atsor: and Watson-Franke 0985).
7. Two volL: t::cs of nU!! American Sl~w consisl uf
i rtcev!,'W, mndu..::cd a: Cis:, University before :1:e
Federal ',;,'r:t.:r,' I'ecjcct wrrs neated. D.dng the b!te
1%0, ,md ("lrJy I97(),. Lester (1968) a:ld Yetman (1970),
,1)nol11\ otl:C!o, wei" pU:lli;;h!ng parts of and wr'ting
~4bal! ttl:" ,lave narratives. After the pJblkation Ilf ]'he
Americar! Slavi', Rawick (1977) ,1IId olher researchers
searchl'!:l lor, 10Ul1d, ,md IYJhJi,hcd ml!:JY Dther slave nar-
ratives [':al had depositeJ:' in 5:31" :uU..,,::ons and
libraries. ?\ot surpri,ingly, they li::und that ,mlle
of the Mrrdlivcs had been tamp<:fed with, pre.su:nahly II)
SuIlJlH'''' ntgati\!(' portrayal~ of whites.
8. For Ilwryi"ws of earl", scw:ld,wHw ie:l1ini5t . oriented to inviting narratives.
u,t oflifc hi,tory personal narratives, see Armitage
(l983), Griller (1986), Gluck (197'1. 191'13), "ersonal
]\,'amtiv,s GrO:1P (1989), and Rcinhan': (J 992, chap.
'1. hen hefnre feminism b~camf a major :',:lu,
cr.!x· in social ,denee there we~e exc:e:111'CI1S
In thi., Ilal!ern of mel::odolugical indifference anc
ub;tx:tiflcatilm of reseiu.:h pllrric"i;JallK ~or a;ample,
in Alolintain W"lj Wimum: Sisler oJ Crashing 'f'Ir!indl!~
Luric' (l 'l6l ) addressed many me:hodo]ogical iSS.ll'S
and des'ribed i tJ dCla:[ her reiati[J:lshi::; with MOllntain
Wdf \Vomall.
Hi. Sec Mishler (1995. ;:p. 90-1(2) on various
ways in ,,')kh na:nlive connect :hc
"telling" and [hc "Iold:'
I L Polb.:::ghome (1995) and Mishler (l9~;,; abo
made dlstinctiuns among types of narraliv~ rr.sc<l:cn
in the :,odal ,cie:lces, hUI be,cuBe they e~dudcd iKlmc
kincis of w[J;k that r wall;:O lIK;"dc land bC(~ll'c they
included ;;mm ;';:nds that I war~t to exd·.:c'c), I COil,
strucr my own bere.
lkmuse qnantitative moees of inqui ry ,1r"
SO domirl<lnl in psycho:ogy, scml: psychologists :xat
narrati~e inquj ry as s}'llonymous with q<:alitalive
inq"iry (J llssrison, Lieblich, & MeAda:::;;;, 2mB).
Non~lheless, I Ir :ed to separale oulll p;;y.:holo!',i,
;;al appm&ch thel! uses ~nalytk I h~vr artk-
l:lated al:d ."i is ~ot Identical to sualila:iw resc'arch
i:: gent'raL
13. For inlervlew gUides usnl by pSl'rh"'ogical
who take a tt;ltratiw appmach, see
.\1cAdHIJlSillld BowlJ:an {2001. P?12- 13; and Iosselson
(I 996h, pp.
14. Same :he r~st!lrchl'rs l include 'n this
appmadl are 1101 silciologists. MIl' exar:-:ple, Mishle-
is a ~ycho](lgist and L;l r:gc::ict :3 a communication
5Chora~. Nonetheless, tileir appro a!:') :, ",)riologieal in
the ways described he'fe.
IS. Some:imes memoirs,,,~,'n :hose not written by
"d,,::tisls, haw ~Illoethnograph:c eheenele,],
tics, For examp.'::, in the (;o/(!r l.im:; Rtlfe,
Pareljtfrlg, mid Cu{/WY;, Heddy (1991) ill\!('stlgaled her
e:':pI:rienc'::i as 1I ,\> hile wnmar: rr:arrled to an Afrkan
;\ rr:eriClIl ml1n and as the mM>.er of two hif'.rdal
tddren. Sht' ~ho\"rd how these raciali7ed rCIQiion-
disrupted her 'dentity as a white ",eman and hcr
\llld ~rslanding of racial issues in th" SOdill world. The
w:[fing i!Scll: ~OWt'ver, i, fill! experimen:a I in :h<.: same
way Ihal much outoeth,Hlgraphk IIdting
16. Ch"se (19950, 2003) for " U)r:~parison
of sociological interview q\lcstbns and queslion;
17, Ihe 111[1Ien(<; of narmtiv" inquiry can be ~een
in lhe dif"erence hetwee;: Rllb! ll'S (1976) Wor/,i> of
Pant· Lift in the i'ill'ti1lg Fami~' and Rubin's
(J 994) J;amilies on rile Fa/Jltli'r,~: Amcritil5 14hrkhrg
CIa>; Avout :1;1/ Family, the Economy, alui
filmiC/I): In the carlie: bODk, Rubin : U176) pn;sell:ed
monyn:ous excerpts from il range of interviewees to
rcrrc.~cnt various 6eme.s. In contrasl, l{:Jbin : J994)
(JIg.anized the more reeel'! ~round the ;1orie~ of
,;pecilk Imllilies, beg: :ming 3nd (:nd '::8 hook with
It:c same IDltr fami:: es.

J8. :lee also o.:~berg ( J996) on tile wa)'s in which
researche:s "convert what we ha>re beef! toid from one
kind of account into another" ltl. 110). In addition,
Jossclson (!996a) Dffered an interesting discus,ion of
the an;tiety. guilt, and .,hame thal n:ay arise when
"writing other ?eflple's lives" and sharill8 illterpreta·
tions ",>jth :hose people.
19. Ferguson's (2001) Btld Bo)'s: Puhlic Schoo!:; ill
the Making of Black Mascuiinify (Jffer, an elllmple l;[ a
re.tarcher mixing narrative slrategies. For the mo"t
rar:, Ferguson wrote with an aU:hon:ative voice. But ill
the midc.le of the book, she shifted to it supportive '10k"
whet: she inc~uded a 27·page transcript from <1r: Inter-
view with an Ali'kan American mother whl'S!: att~mpt
10 disdp:!ne her san was itself disciplln<:d by police,
courts, and social service agencies. Ferguson s:atcd,
«You mllst read what .Y1ariana hild til say aloud. You can-
not u!1derstand it unless you hear the words" (p. 135).
20. For many other examples, see KeehlEr (J'l!L,
?P. 89-93), langneii~ and Frank (1981), and Watson
and Watson Franke (1985).
21. Focusing vn ins:ances ~a:her than represent<!·
live cases is not :.:nique to l1arrative inquiry. but be
issue may seem rr.cre urgent in :larralil'1: research
because of small numocr of narratives that
researerll"T. p;esl'nt For broader discussions of the
relation between the par:icul,,: and tbe general. See
Blum and Y.cHugh (1984, p. Jmzin (1997. p.24S),
and Psathas (1995, p. 50).
Tili! v"gina M01/0logues w., originally an oil
Broadway pwduction basec <m illterview:; with 200
".mer:':":l women. It has beell perl1:l;mcd in many
and colllmllnities across the I:nited States as well
as around the globe. When performed in conju~ction
with the "V-day" Illovemer:t, prollts are dDnarea 10
organilatiolls fightillg violence against wo:nen.
II REFEREKCES
.A.nderson, Ie & Jack, D. C. (1991). Learning :0 liste:l:
Ir,terview techniques and analyses. In 5. R. t:luc;':
&" D. Palai (Ed:;.), WomeN5 Il>Ilrds: The frminis/
practi::e of oral h~~tory {Pl'. I New York:
Routledge.
Arm:!ag~, S. H. (l'l83). The nnl s:ep. Front!ers:
A Journal ~(WomellJ: Studies, 7, 3-8.
Atkinson, P., & SiI"er man, D. {I 997). KUlldera's
Immortality: The i:: :er\'iew SQcle:]" a nu t~e
invention of the selL Qua/ilative Inquiry, 3,
304325.
ChaSe: Narrative Inquiry II /,/3
Atkinsoll, R. (2002). T'le life story intervie\\i. In
J. E Guhriwn & J. A. Ho'stein (Eds.), Handbook
of interview research: Coflti'_tt and methud
(pp. 121-140). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Auerhad:, S. (2002). "Wily do they give t~e
good classes to some and ::01 to o;nrr$;"
Latino parenlnarra!ives Qf struggle in a w;.ell"
access program. leadwrs Co/lege Record, 104,
1369-1392.
Babb, J., III Thylor. P. E. (1981). Border he.,ling woman:
71Je story of Jewrd lJalJb. Au.uin: University of
Texas Press.
Bamberg, M. G. W (1997). I'OSitioning bet"een 8tmc'
ture ar:d per:orr.;ance.!ournal of Narrative and
Life IlislOry, 7. j:;;'-::I4'1..
Barlnes, (1977).lmage. mllsi.., te.n (S. Heath. Trans.).
l\ew York: Eill & Wallg.
Ba'~man> It (1986). Story, performance. cmd event:
Ctmtextual studies in .:;rai narrativ!!. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge I:nivmity Press.
Becke:, H. S. (l965). :mrorll:cfioll. In C R. Shaw, Tile
JllciH'oller; A delinquenJ boy~ awn sto~y. Chicago:
:Jnivernity of C~icago Press.
Broar, R. (1996). The 'Vulnerable o!'~m'er: Anrhropolog)!
t~at bre/M:S your I,eart. Boston: Beaton.
Beha:, R, (2003 J. Translated woman: Crossirig the border
with bper.lr:Ztl5 siory. Bosl{m: Ilcacon.( OriS; l1al
work published ill 1993)
BeJellky, M. (linchy, I~. "'t, Galdberger, X. R" &
11lfule. J.M. (1986). Woml'n~ waysolknowmg; The
d,,')eivprnenl oj' self. voice. und mind, New York:
Basic !looks.
BelL S. E, (1999.:, Kamlives and lives: \'v'omen's neal,h
PQIiIi<;s alld the diagnosis of cancer iar DES
daughters. NarrutiVIJ Inquiry, 9,347-389.
llertalll{, J. (R.I.). (19Si). Biography ami ,aciety: The
lifi~ uppratlcil in the social scirnces. Bc~erly
Hills, Sage.
3everley, J. (2000). lhlimonio, subalterllity. ilnd
nucrative autht.Jrity. N. K. Dentin & Y. S.
linluin (Eds.). HalldboQk ,if qualitative n:Si?WI:h
(2nd ed., pp. 555-565). Tnousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Blauner, B. (1989). Black live,;, w,~ile lives: Three decades
of ma: rciatiorl. in America. Berkeley: University
Qf f..alifornia Pre$~.
8100n:, L R" & Munro, l' (1995). Conflkts or
N[l::'~n:;arv, sub,'ectivity, in wo~en adminis-
tralors' life history :larrabeE. In I. A. Hatth 8:
R. Wisniewski (Ed•. ), Lift! history artd narrative
(pp. 99-1 i2). LQndo:;: Fa,mt~r.
674 III IlAl'\DlIOOK or QUALITATIVE RESEARCII-UIAI''I'~R
BL::n, A., & jl,1dlugh, F( (1984 J. Se!frejlectiafi the ,Uls
arlit sciences, Atlantic :-lighlanch, NJ: Hu:nanities
Press,
Blumer, : J979), Cril iques oj' Jl1 the ><)('14/
sc<tllccs: ,'In appraisal of 1110111(15 and Z rumicc"i~
The Polish ""'asanl in Furope and America, New
Brunswick, '1J: 7mnsa;;::ion Rooks. (Or:ginal
work pUJI:shed in 1939)
Babe{, C, 1200lJ. rhe pai'<ld.',~ .if i'/i1tun:;l motliering,
l'hiladdphi~; Tet::ple University Pre5~,
Ih:kin, II. A. (Ed,), ~1945), Lay /Ilmien dawn, A fi'l~
history of s!"c'cry. Chicago; t.:niversity of Chicago
PrC5S.
Briggs, C L : J 986), Learning Iww I,' ask: A 5ociciin·
gili5!i, appraisal of the tOie lif the itltervirw in
sciR'.~ccrcsearch, Cambridge, 'JK: Cambridge
l'nivcrsity l:rt'1>$,
Briggs, C, L. (2002), l~,iefvicwins, powerlknowl"dge,
and social inequality, In J, E G.lbriur:1 & J, A,
Holstein (Eds,), lIandboak oj'lmerview re$:'<7n;/;,
Co:!texr and I1wthorl (pp, 911-922), Th,.t]sand
Oak" Sage,
Bmckmeier,]" & Carbaugh, lJ, (Eds.). (2001), Narr,n/wi
mlil identity: Studies in <7l1fcbiagrapf1" ;'c'lf, (lr;d cui,
lUff':, i\ mstercll!:-:1, Netherlands: Jctm Bee jami fl"
Bruner, I. (986). Ikwal minds, PQs>ible warlds.
Call1',,'''oe,MA: Eanard Universitr ?res~,
Bruller, I, ( 1997), Labov ,mt! Walttzky; T:1irty years on,
JOllrtlal of NarratiVE aruf Lije Hij/{lr), 7, 61-68,
Bruner, I. (2002), Making steries: Law, iiu:nwm; life,
New ftJrk; Farrar, Stratll', & Giroux,
Burgos, M, (1989), Life s[o:ies, naITativily, and the
search for the self, Ufe ;;tllr;", rReciL< dl,
5,
Capps, &. Oehs, E. ( (ol'l;/fucting
1
The tliscollrse Ilj agorap wbi<1. Cam'crieg.::, "'lA:
Harvard University Press,
Chalasitls<i, /. (19il:), The life records of 'chI: young
generatio:c of ?oli~h peasants as II ::lanifc&ta:ion
of conterr.porarv culture, 1:1 U. Bcrtm:x (Ed.},
Biography ami ,lor/ely: The lije hi.tary 1PPrllQlh i1:
the >ocial (pp. 119- Beverl r Hills,
CA;
Chase, S, E. [l995a), Ambiguous empowerment: rhe
work t1l1rratiw:s af wOmen school sl.Iperintf'lIdems,
A:nhcrst t.:niversitl' of Massadu;;etts Pres~.
Chase. S, E, (199;;1:». Tab1!l nam.:ive ~er:ously:
Conscq uellces fOe :nethoc and theory in inter,
view sludil.'S, l~, R. JosgelsQr. & A, :.iebEch (Eds,),
inltrp velil1g experirncl!: Tne tlarratbe s!U(~} (1'
livcs (pp, 1-261. Thousand C,\:
25
Chase, S. l'. (I 996). Persona 1 vulnerability
interpretive authority in nar~;il: Ill! research, in
R. jo&seL,on (Ed,), Ethics und prOl:r:ss in !he raJ"",
live study of lives (pp. 45-5~J. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage,
(has~, 5, E, (2001), Unjv..r,ilic> as dis,urs1v",
environments for identty (On~trllction, Ir.
J. E Guorh.:m & r. A. Holstein (Eds.J, 1I1s!f/utionll!
selves: not/bled idmtities i11 i! pastmluiem I.llrld
[pp, 142-' 57). New York: t1xford University
Pr~ss,
Chase, $, E, [2003), ; ..:,,:1111115 to . Narmtiv< prine:'
pIes in iI qualitative research methods ;:ourse, In
R, !osse: 30n, A, l.ieblirh, I\( D, I' McAdam, rEds'),
Up r:lllSt and flefs,mal: nil! teaching amlltaming
of narrn/iV(! rCji'lm.:h (pp, 79-99), Washi::gtol1,
DC; Ame~i can Psrroo:ogical Associa:icn,
Clougb., P. T, (2000), Comments (111 setting criteria for
npdmen:al writing. QuaJi!llti~e Inquir;;1 6,
278-291.
Crapanzano, V. (1980;. TII,7umi; Portmit of a Moroccan,
Chicago: Universi:r of Chicagc Press,
Crawley, S, L (2002;, "Tbey still lllcderstand why
I hale wcari::g dresses:" An autoethnographk
mn: on dresses, buals, and butdmess. CUilllrul
'iludil" Cr;;'caf Methodolcgies, 2, (,9-'12,
Crawley, $, L & Broad K. :., ~20(4). <elk your(:,eal
les'J:an )sdf'" ;vlobiUalng sexual formula sto:ies
throug!: personal (and po:i;ical) ~torrLdling,
/oiiwal of Contemporary r:;llIlo,(fmph); JJ, 39-71.
Cza:niawlika, Ii (1997), Narrating the ,)fgaJJizafioll:
Dramm of i.~s!itutlollal identity. Chicago: I:niver-
sity Cb:ago I'=CSS,
C'l;1:;niaw~.ka, B. (2002). Narrative, imerv iews, and orga'
nizatlo:Js. b l. E Gubrium & I.A, :Iolstein (Eds,),
Hand/lOok oi ime!'jliew u.>carch: Cm1/ext and
methad (pp, 733-749), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, J E. (Ed. I. (2002), Slmie; of clu:mgl': Narrative
(md hociu/ mOWIlle'lt•. A,bilny: Statel:nivcrsity of
New vork Press,
De:1zil1, N. K, (1970), rhe research aCI;A Incoretiw!illlro-
ductian tll 5ociaiogi(ui methods. Chicago: ,\ldi ne.
Denzin, N. K. (1 Y8'!), Interpretive biography. Newbury
Park, CA: Sal:e,
Del1zln, K. (1997), iruerpretive etimograpliy:
Elhnogn'[Jhic prarli. e5 tin thl? cemury.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Denzin, };. K, (2000), The ?ractices and politks of
interrcelatiol1, III N, K, Denzin &. y, S, Lincoln
(Eos,), Harulbook oj'qua!imlil'e resmrc/; (2110 eo"
pp. Thom.and CA: Sage,

Dern:in, N. K. (2003). ThecaU j(l perrCr:11ance. Sym/lQ/i;
Infm,.·tio/l., 1 c'.iscursive r(,SOllrce: I.cgitima:iQn in the work
Denzill, N. K., & Lincol n, Y. S. (:WOO). Introduction: T'1C
discipline and practice qualitat've research. In
t\. K. Dcmin & Y. S. ~inmln tEes.), Handb(}(}k oj
quaiiUltive research (2nd cd., PI!. Thousand
Oak"
DeVault, M. L (1999).U/Jemting mtth.od: Feminism and
social resellrch. Philaddph:a: Tern ,lIe University
Pre:;,~.
DeVault M, & Ingc'aham, C. (1999), Metapho:'l!
of ~:Jencc and vOice in fcm:n: st thought In
M. L DeVault, Uhera'ing method: Femit/iSl'n IImi
social r;:,>/,arch (;:,p. 1186), Philadelphja:
Temple U:liversity Pres,.
DuBois, (:960). The peop(e of Alor:.4 socia/.psycho·
logical stully ofan East Imium is/mit!, C8:nhr'dge.
MA: Harvard University Press. (Origine\ work
puhli"hed in 1944)
Ehre;',;eic;" II, (2OC 1). Ni:J:el "ud dirfled: 011 (trot) getting
~l' ;n limerial, New Y~d: M~tmpolitan Hooks.
Ellis, &, Herger, L (2002), Their slory/My story{Our
slor'1; [r:rllld ing the researcher's ~xperie:w;!
ill j nterview r"scarch. J11 J, E Gubrium & J• .'\,
:fol,tcin (Eus.), Handbook of inter~flJ'w I1isearch:
COII/.W and met/;od (pp, 1'149-875), Thousand
Oaks, C": Sage.
dlis, &: B(Jc::ner,:\, ? (1992 I. 'leIE::g and perform·
pe'5onal ;,turics: The of choice in
abortion. l:: fiE, & M. G. Htl:;erly {l'd~_l,
[lIve.itigolting subWaiviry: Research 011 liVed I!xpe-
rienfe (pI" 79-1 ():). Newbury Park, CA:
I:l1is. c.. & Boehne;, P (Eds.), (19%). Composirrg
ethnQgraphy: Alter;lIItiv" fimns of tfualiw Ive
writing. Walnu: Cxck, CA: AltaMira.
Ellis, C. 8< Flahert)', M. G. (Eds.). (l992), ItlN!$tigat·
ing suIJjeah'ity: Research em hved experience.
Newbury Par:-, CA;
Ell:s,c.. Kiesil1ger,c;, E,,/k Yillmann- Healy, L.vt (1991),
Inn:r~Cfil{e imen,jewing: T~l~jllg about emoti<lr.al
ellperiw<:e.ln R, Hertz; ~Ed.l, Reflexivity ami va ice
(pp. :19~1491. Thousand Q"ks,CA:Sage.
Ernihc,vich, C (1995), mstandng passion: NIITmrives
ill soda! III I. A. Hareh & R. Wisniewski
(Eas,), Life history ami naTl'tllivf (pp, 37-48).
LOIlc'cn: falme:,
t:nsler, 12, (2001). 71w vaginil mmw/ogueS: 'fhe ~'-day
editi<Jn. 'lew 'rork: Villard/Random
Ferguson, A. A. (2001 J. Bad boys; Public sc/rools in
tlll~ making 0.( "'ad: masculinity, Anl1 Arbor:
J:::vcfsity of Mj,higan Press.
Chase: Narrative rnq-;;ry III 675
Foky, L, & F'aircloth, C. A, (2003), Medici ne as
nar:1!lil-'cs r;, idwive:>. Sociology tJj' Health
It/rlcS!, M.
:rank.A. W, (I 1195). The wouftded Sjoryleller; BOily: illness,
CllId ethics. eh i';;:'80: Univer$i:y of Chicagnl'ress,
Frank, (I, (2000). l-ell!ls Qllwneels: Two decades of di,,~
rogue 011 disalJilit)\ bi,Jgraphy, and beingJema!e il1
.
Ameriw, BerkeleY' University, of California !'reS5,
Franz, C. £., & Stewart, A. :. (Ed •. )_ (1994), lwm,en
creating laeti/iries, re"ilience, atlt1 resista/1ce,
Iln:l:Jer, CO: Westview.
Gumson, W. {2002}. H'J\\, >!oryrellillg ,an he
empowering. In K. A, [emlll (EdJ Culture in
miNd: 1blW.rd a socio/OK)' of rui!w't IJnd cllgr.itioti
(PI" 187-198). New York: ROllllcdge,
H. (l967} Studies ill "limomerhodciogy.
Englewood Cliffs, NI; i're:Jticc Hall
Ge;ger, S. N. G. (l986)~ Wemen', !lfe '::stories: Method
ar:G content. Sigm: {.1IJrnal of Womell in Culture
IJnd Society, 11, 334-351.
Gluck, S. (1979), WhaC:; so .pc:cial about women?
Worr:en's history. Frontiers: A Journal of
Women's Stuilies, 2, 3-1 ..
Gluck, S, II. (:')~3;. \'10:11;:0'$ oral history: Tile second
decade. Frontiers: .4 journal '1- Wame/!:, SW.fies,
,.,
i,
Gluck, S, II., &. I'alai, D. :I:d,.;, (1991). Women~ woras:
The jemiilisl I'racli<:e af (Ira; histor)t New Yr.rk:
Rnutledge.
Grima, 'l. (l99l). The role of 5ut1ering in women's
perfon::anc~ pax/a. 111 A. Appac t:n i,
E ;, Korom, & M. A. Mills (Ed:;.), Gender, genre,
and power in Sou I~ .A Siilll cxpressi VI! tradi·
(pp, 101 J. 'Philadelphia: University of
?ennsyl'lania PH:,.,
Gubrium, I. [, & Holstein, I. A, (: 'I'l7). The Ilew lar.
gUllge .if quailill/we method. New York: O:<;ford
University PrM.
Gubrium, J. E, &: Holstein, J. ,\. (cds,). (20DI).
Ir.,lifUcional .<eiv<'s: Thwbicd identities iii a post-
modl'rtl world_ New York; Oxford L:nivcrsi t}'
Press.
G'~briut:::, I. E. il< lIolslcin. J. A. (2002). from the
ir.c:vidual j ntervicw to t':e interview society, In
I, ~, Gubrium &: I. A, Holstein (Ed,.), Iiandll:J(lk
of III/en'few '1!S~llrcl:: C,mt<!xl ~na melhod
(pp, Thousand Oaks,
Gwaltney, J. I, (Ed.). (~9lj3). Dryiot/gsa: A self-parIrair
a/Black Ameri~ll, ~ew York: New PreS/,. (Origillal
work pJblishe<l in 1980)
676 III HAN DBOOK OF Q1:A T.lTATIVE RESEARCH -CHAPTER
Hagood, 1\1.. /. (1939). Motl,,:r£ '?f the South: Pvrtraiture
of the white rl"rlar.t farm womm;. New Yor~:
Greer:wood.
Hatch, J. A" &: \'\'isnicw:;ki, R. (: 995; .tif<: .~i5tory
and narmlive. Lo::don: ralmer.
Hertz, R. (Ed. J. (19'l7). Reflexivity and voice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sag".
lIilbe:l, R. (1990). The efficacy of perfim:1:Ince
science: Comment 0;: :-1d:all and Social
PrQu;em.;, 37, 133 ~ US.
Hinchman. L 1', &: Hinchn:all. S. K. (Eds.). (2001).
Me/fU',p ide.~tity, community: The idea (If mrra·
til'" in !i;e I,tlman sciences. Albany:
t;niversi ty of ¥n:k
Hoisteb, LA., &: Gubrium, J. F. (20001. l1l1J sci/we live
bJ': N,lfrllliw rder,tity in II pOSl11Iodl711 worM.
New Oxfurd University Press.
Hunt, A. M.. &. Winegar;en, R. 09S3), I amAH"ie 1l,lae;
An extraordinary black Texas woman in her aW11
words. Austin: Uni1lersity of Texas Press.
JIKcl)S, R. H. (I 979). Life after )'flull!: Female, jiJrty-
l¥hut 1II:;<;t? Hoston: Be'4(OIl.
/osselson, R. (I9%a]. 0" wr:ri::g other pe{Jple'~ 1ives:
Self'<l:lalytic rdlecliolls of a narrali'!e researcher.
:n R. Jossc'son (:::d.), "thies an,l process in
lJarrali'l/i study of live.! (P? 60-71). Thousand
Oaks. CA: Sag!:.
Jo.ssd~cn, R. (J 996b). Revising 1;erself: The story Qf
'",omen\; identity/rom col/ege 10 midJi{i!. Kew York:
Odord University Press.
Jossc1son, Lieblich, A., &: McAdams. P (&Is.).
(2003). up cio>;, and personal; The t;:ac!ling and
leumi"g of narratiye l(S(arcl:. Was'1 i ngton. DC:
America:: PsychologicaJ Assodation,
Kardiner, A. (J 945,. The psyc~ological fmllliers
society. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Koehler. L (1981 J. MaUve women of the Americas:
A Il[bliogra phy, From 1er!: II jOllrllll1 of lVomen~
Studies, 6, 101.
Krieger, S. (1991 J. Sac/al ,'cienCl: and t!le self: Personal
on an iltt[.lf11l, :-.lew Brunswick, I'J: Rutgers
L:niversiry
L.~bo., W., /I: vValet:.:;y, J. (1997). Narrative Il::aly:>is:
Oral versions of experience. jou.rrwi of
l>iarrative arid Lire History. 7, (Original work
publis:~ed in 1967)
Langellier, K M, (200 l). marked: Breast cancer,
t.ttno, and the narrative per«Jrlllance of iden:i:y.
In J. Ilrc.ekmeicr & D. (;arbauj!h (Ed •. ), Narratil'e
fdenrif):: Studies itt Cillta/liograph,y; self: ilnd
,"lture (pp. /45- J84). Amsterdam, :-.Ict:~erlands:
John Bcn;an:ills.
Langness, L L 11 %51. lhe life I:istory in anl.~ropologi.
cal sdence. !\tw York: Hall. Rinehart & W:;'JstOrl.
Langnesii,:'. L" &: Frank. G. (: 9AI). lives: All an!nmptJ-
loginJ; approach t(J biography. Nov,\to, CA:
Chandler 8< S':arp.
Laslt'tt, R. (1999). I'er;m::al narratives as sociology.
COmetnpl1fllry Sori%;;:y, 28, 391-401.
:.emper:. L, B, (J 994). A ;:arrative analysis ,)f abu,,,:
Conncch::g tbt: I'cr,unal, the rhetorical, :md the
slrut!uraL Journal of Contemporary EUuwgraplry,
22,4L-44L
Lester, J. (1968).10 be a slave. New York: Scholastic.
Lelyis, O. (1961J. The children of Sdflciu:z: ltUtobio
gl'llphv of U Mexican family. New York: Randme
:io:;sc.
Lie::'ow, E. (1993). 7eii them who 1 am: rhe lives of
nomeless women. :.rew York: Pl!ngu:;;.
Lincoln, Y. S. (19971. subject, iludi£l1ce, text: Living
at :he edge, '''ritingin the margin;;. In W.G. Tierney
&. V. S. Linmlr: (Ed,.), RepreseJltation and the text
Reframir,g the MUraliv!! voice (?p. ,37-5's). A[)any:
Stutl:' University 0' :-lew York Press.
Lincoln. t ~. (1000). J\arrative aulhOlity ">. pe:jured
tcsli::Jonr Courage, v:.:lncrability, and truth.
Qualitative Studies EducaliGll. J3, 131-138.
Losek£.D. R. (2001). Lived realities aod formulu stories
of "bat:ered won:<:n:' 1n J. E Gubriurll 6< J. A.
Holstein :Eds.;, [nstUIl/IO/uii selves; Tmu/JIed /tJe/I.
!ities in a poslmot:iern world (pp. : 07 ~ 126).
t>;ew York: Oxtord Gnivcrsity Press,
Lurie, N. 0, (Fd.). (]96:). Mounrain Wo!j'iiQlI!aIL' SiSler
of Crashmg '1hulIder. Am: Arhor: Uni"crsity
Michigan Press.
Lut::ell, W. (1997). Sth",,/·sraart and mother·wise:
l'\Jbr~ing-ctass w(J1t:en~ identity Ilnd schooling.
;\lew Yor~; Routledge.
Llltt7ell. W, (2003). PJ7?gm;mt bodies, fertile mimis;
Gender, nw:, and the schooling of pregnant li'~1I~.
t\ew York; Routledge.
.'>1<1di501l, D. S. (19)18). Performance.IJersonal nanl·
tives, ar:d the "ciitic. nf pOiksibility, III 5.), Dailey
(Ed.), The future of performance studies: ~;i5i{lm
and revision, {pp, Annandale, VA:
'latiDnal Communication As~ocialion.
Mann, & S:cwar:, E (2002).llIteruel ir.rcfvicwing.
In J. F. GubrilllTI and J. A. Holstei:: (Eds.),
Handbook of i1ltevview resellrc/:: Context and
mel/loa (pp. 603-627), Thous~nd Oaks. CAl Sage,

\kAda:n., U H (199n IJlI? slarle: ct·" lif'/:, /~I< Persotjal
myths and the malriJl;; (If t.~.: St!t: New York:
Gujlfa~d.
McAdams, J. E, &: Bowman, P. ). (200 I). N,u mL::g life'.,
turning POir:I&: Redemptb:: and contaminat;on.
In I). P. McAdams, It. )o,,,e:son. & A. Uebl icll
(Eds.), rums in Il;e mad: Narrative siudle,
rrtmslrion (PI'. Wa,hington, DC;
American PSj·chologkal """ciation.
MCAdam;. D. I:. Jossclson. R.• & Lieb;ich, A. (Eds.).
(200 I). TUrris in Ihe road: bfarrtitivl' studies of
lives in rnmsiru.!1.. Vvashillgmn, DC: Amerk~1l
Psychological Association.
McCall. M. M.• & Becker, H. S. (l990J. Perlarmallee
SCle:Jee. Secial t'roMems, 37, I: 7-132.
McCall. M. :VI., I'< WilIne;, J. (j 990). Tht' good news
abr:ut life JjSto0~ III H. S. Becke" & M. M. McCall
(Fd~.), 5ymbuhc int~raf'i,m alld cullur~1 studies
(pp, 46-89). Chicago; t:nh'ersity of Chicago Press,
McLaughlin. D., &: Ticr::ey, V{ G. (Eds.). ( 1993). ,"luming
silel1;;ea liltes: Persona/narrariyes ami pro(e>~/!s
edUCilrf(ma! c/;ange. ~ew Rnk: Rm:tlt'tlg".
Me.Mahan, M" &; Rogers, K. L (Ed,.). (ll)94~.
interactive oml history il1lerviewhlg. Hilhdalc,
)If J: Lawrence Erlha·~~.
MC:1chil. R. (1984). I. lUgo&erlu Mel/cili!: AI; If/ilion
woman in Guatemala (with an i:noduc:io:l
by E. fl::rgos·[)ebray, Ed.; .... Wright, Trans.).
Londo;;; Ver~.
Miller, C. (199?). Becoming .. rirade workers; L!mguuge
Imd meanirlg it! brief therapy, New York: Aldine
de Gruytc,.
Mills. C W. (1959). rhe svri%Xkal ir"ugirmti{l1I.
:.ondon: Oxford University Press.
Mishler. E. C. (.986). Research infm1iewing; Cvr:textanri
Ulm 'Jri::ge, MA: H<uvard University
Pre~~.
.\1 ish:er, E. G. (1995). Model., fJf narr"rilfii' anaJysb: A
lypology. Journal of Nilr:ll:iv€ am! life Hi£tory,
5, [23,
M: s::Ie r. E. G. ( : 9')9 ). Storylines: Craft tlrtistitrarra liv!S()f
ide"ii,)'. CambriC8/!, MA: Htm'ard Univcf,ily P;ess.
f>I.(JYJ.no, M. E. (2000). The lluwbirJgrapl;y of .I"larla
Elena Moyano; The life and death ,1 Peruvian or
activ!st (Il M. TUp<IC, Ed. and Anno:.). Gaincsv:l1e:
Univers:ty Press of Aodda.
Myerh"f~ B. (llI9'l). Numller ,Ii" days: Cuiture and
wmmunily /lm:mg dderlv jew;; it: tit! Am('ri(all
ghetto. Nt.'w York: Mer :dian/Pcnguin. (0 riginal
work publish,,,1 in ! 'J7g)
Chase: !'Jarrative Incuirv
, , II 677
Mples, N. (20031. Dc(o::$tructing and :(lCllting
survivo; diswune: Dynamics of narrative.
emp(lwenmm. and resistance 1'0; survII'{lfs of
milc::{loo sexual abuse. :>igns: Journal of 11Ibmerl
in ell/lllye anti .'io.iety, 28, 1151 ~ 1185.
N,lrayan, & George, K. :\11. :2C02). f'e:;;ollal and
:olk narc;!!ive as cultural rcpresentc:io::. In
J. F. Gubr!c:;n &. I. A. Holstein (Eds.), HaJld/wok
of in/erview researciJ: C"!Jlexl (llld /tlelllOG
(pp. S1 I). Thousand Oai;s.
Ochberg, R. L. (J 996). Intqm:t iwg lif~ storie." In
R. Jcssclson (Ed). Hille, aud pTlie."" In :!:e lillrl'(!'
til'': sllIdy of lives (PI'. 97-113 J. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Personal Nm~tives Group. (1989).lmerl'relir,g
Mmlfll~ 11l't',; remi,jjsl theDI), tlrJd pctS(lr"ll m;rra·
tives. Bloomingtcn: Indiat:a l:niversity Pres.~.
Plumm{'r, K. (: 98-'). Documelll, of We: All irJlr;;aucri(m
fa tiJl' problems and literature of a hum~lIist:,
method. London: Gemge Allen & t:nwir:.
Plummer, K. :1995). Telling s~xuill storitis: Power.
chm'gr, and soria I worlds. 1.0::dOll: Routledge.
Polki!1i;homc, U. r:. (1995). Nar:at've CUl1:1gui<11ion in
qualita!iw analys:s.1 fl J. J\. Hatch & VoJi.l1icwsld
(Eds), aM "i.l rratiw (pr.
Lnndon: l'almc:.
Pellner, M., &: Sl<'il:, J. (1990J. Namlliv,' Inllrri ng
of sodal voke ()f cxpcrk'!1(c ill
Alco h,lI ics Ane.nYlllou~. illteran !GiI,
t9, £".,~"..t..'.
Psathas. (,. t 199,). CO/11!,~satilm ~'It1IySi5: 1he flutly of
talk-in·i>!tlllll'iitJIl.Thousand Oaks, CA:
Rlldi r" P. (Ed.). ( 1926). Cmsh!n,!; Thunder.' ne auJobiog-
TUI,fry un American /lIdr{l/I. New York: Appleton.
Randall, v.. (1981 i. Smulillos dllughters: ·Ii:.rrinwme.<
Nicaragulln wame'l ill"lrugg/e. Vancouver, llrilhh
Columhia: New Books,
Randa::, M. (.994). SlIlIdilWli dt;ughiers revisited:
FemirJist" in ,vi:aragutl. New Brunswick, .'lJ:
Rurge;s Lniver~ity Press.
Randall, Y.. (2003;. When liaok iU/(llhe mirror and ,ee
lUu: Womell, !error. and r':sislmlll!. New Brunswick.
NI; Rutgers U:::vesily Press.
Rtlwick, C P. (197£). nJC' American A composite'
alilO/;i/Jgrtlph)~ Veil. I: Fw.''!; Srll1tivwfI til Sil'IIiP-
Thl? making 0/ the bluet C()mmulli~y. We~t:mrt,
(1: Gree!1wood.
Hawick, G. P. (: 977). General inlrcauclioll. III
C. Rawick, J. Hillegas. & K. ulwren..:e (Ed.,.). nif:
J\mfrinm slave: A cuml".sill! autovio!;mpli),
678 III HAN DIlOOK OF QUA UTATIVE RfSLARU! -CH APTER
Supplement, S<:f. I, Vot I: Alilbanm narmtil'es
(fiP. ix-ti), VvcstpDrt, CT: C:reenw['lod.
It,,':':!, M. T. (1994), Lro,S!ng Ihe color lirr.e:
parC11ti'!g, Imd culture, New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutge rs Ullivrrsity Pre;,s,
lte;n~ar~, $, (1992). feminist mer/wd: in soeia!
research. Ynrk: Oxford [:nlversil}' Press.
Re:nhar7., & e'lits;:, ~. K (2001), Inlefvicw:ng
womer:, :r. I, E Gubrium & r. A. Holstein (Lds.),
HllIldbock t{ i!!!ervirlv r,'searr:h: COlllex' und
mclhod (pp. Thousand Oaks, c.\:
Ribbcns, I., & J:tiwards, It (I'ds.), (j 998 J, Peii~itli:Sl
dilemma; in !lila/itative r;:se~rch: PuMi. iWlJwl·
edfie and 1"I1'llte lives. Lnnllon: $;;I't.
RkhardsOll, L. (J9S0). Narrative and sociclog}cfuurtlfii
(!l Contemporary flhnagri.ipllp 1.9. 116-135.
Richardson, L. [.2001J. Poetic rerm:sentalior: of inter·
In J, E (7uhrium & J. A, lIolslein (Ells.),
H.mdbook of irl/cniew research: Con/ext find
m(:/lIoI1891), Thousand Oaks, CA:
,'L<!ss:llIar., C K. ( : (90), Dfv(lne l!.ilk: Women and men
make seme of ptl"s(l1l(11 rela!iot;sl!ips. N~w
Brunswkk, -;1: IIn:]:;!'r" Univl.'rsil y Press.
II i"ssma c, K. (I . \ ,hort stery abemt Illng
"'" ",. jUUr<1l1i oj NarMil'€ .md Life flitlOrl',
7. 155 ':3H.
Ric5Sllill:l,C K, (20ma), Analysis pc[wnal ,:lIrra·
lives. ,. E Gubrium & I, 1\. Halshd" (Ed~.i.
Hal/dbook ill
inter"i~\l' ,.'Search; Context
'me/Fwd (pp. 695-7: 0), EClls,md Oa:($, CA:
RicSSITIHl1, C, K. (20mb). ?osil iollillg gender identity i::
n~r:,llives pf illfl":tility: Soulh Indian wOr:1en's
iives (mltex:, In M. Inhorn & Evan :lalfn
.. ~~, .. " lufertility "mumllhe globe: New thil/kirlg
on childfeSSIIt".iS, glmd.:r, a/ld reproductive tech·
Ilologies (pp. 152-170). Berkeley: Jnivfrsity of
C<llif():nia Pnm.
Rosaldo, R. (1976). The story of '.hkbaw: "They ::steri
as he orates?':n r, F. Rc~nollis & n, CaliFS (Fas.),
The biographical prowss: Studies it! tl,e history and
p~vcll~;{)g)' oj re;i,~iol! (pp, 12I·15J). The Hague,
Netherland" Monten.
P..os<'nwuid, G. C, 8< Och':lcrg, R L. (I:ds.), (1992).
SrGricli ('; pej; The cultural politics >elf· uluier.
stafldhll'l, Me'.'" H,wen, ('I':
" .
[niversitv Press.
I{o.ier, 1(, It (2000). M,'the/ing if/nef.city child;alZ: The
cariy Sc/W(l/ years, N(.w Ilrumiwick, NI: Rutgers
LJnivt'rsi:y Press,
Rl1Jin. t, B. :1976). fthrids of'pain' Lije itt the '41o,*ing-
cI/lssllllnily, I'CI\, tork: /looks,
RU·J'n, I.. Il. (1994), Pamilie. 1m fall/tli,!,,; Amcrka;
i4wkillg clas5 speak, aboilt the jil/m'ly, the ecollomy,
race, and ethf!idty. l\ew YDrk: EarperPerennial.
Ih:ddick, & Dani<'is, p, (.I:d8,). Working it
aut: women wri!tIS, aTtisls, Sci71ltiSt.i, ami
scholars (rI!k a/lOU/ tlu:ir lives Gml w(Jrk. 'lew York:
Pantheon.
Sa,h, K. II, (1989), Wha:', a li;e otory got to do with :1)
III Per~t)[:all\aHdliv[s Group lr;tcrpreling
M>tt1m$ liws: Feminist theorics ami personal
t!"rrat!ve, (pp. 85-<)5). Hloomir:gtoll: l'niversity
cf Indiana Prc'Ss,
Scl:egloff, E. A. (lil9?). "Nam.tive allali'sj~" thirty
years la:er. JOlmw[ of .Varroti"c a'ld fye His/ory,
7, '17-106,
:oeJ(to:lI, P. It 91\1}, The I1I'W .Vi;z:ht!llga/e_i.' Haspitlll
'.\'0'*"". un/Oil>, new woa:im~ issues, I\'ew York:
Enl]lliry Pr~;;s,
Shaw, C. R. (1%6), D,e jack·rolfer; A delinquent bajs
"W11 story. Chicago: Universi:y of C'licago Press.
(Orlgina. w()rk puhli~hed in 1>:lO)
Shosta:" M. ;1(89). "What th~ wine worfllakc aw~y";
The genesis of Nisa- nUl arid
a IKung M:nr.lll1. In Pe:mllal Karrat:vcs GroLP
(F,ds.). Interprefil1g wQmnl~ Iiv~;.' Fl!milli>l Ihl';)ry
und pmol!lIi r.arrariws (pp. 228-240),
I!loom:::gton: Indiana Unil>ef'.5ily Pre;;s.
5ho5t~k,,M, (lUOOa). Nisa: The life llI!d ward.( of" !Kung
welt/'ll!. Cam hri c:g{\ ~4 A: lIarvard Llllv(':' it y
Press, (Original work puY shed in 1981)
S::oslak, M. ;2000h). Retur~ to ,\lisa C<lmbridg~, MA:
Harvard Universi;y Press,
Sidd. It (1978:, 1;,111711 sur vival: The world of working-
class womim. Iloston: Beacon.
Stein, l\., ( I1mJ sensibi!ill: Stories af' 9, lesbian
generatirm. Berkele),: Un iy"r&it~ of Caliiu; l1ia
Sl:'omberg, I'. G. (1993).l.tmguage <Ina selj:ln:msjimull'
film: A study of tire Chris/iml (i1~iVi'i~"ioJ! lI.aYr{}ji,fP
Cu:nbr'cige. [K: Cambridge Lllivcrsity Press,
Sutherland, E. ]1, (1937). Tht pr{;ji!ssio!!;;d Illiei
Chlcag(Y" l;niversity Chlcago Pn'ss.
TaylQr, ,. M" Gilligan, c.. 8< S,J!Ii~,!:'l, A. M. lI995).
Befween v(Jiu; and si1eH~l'; women anA gin:, race
and reiilti(l/islltp. Clmbriul5e, .vIA: Harvard
Univers'tv, Press '
'It-dim:", E, (1992). The beaut/fu! (!na ti,e dl1J1grmll>'
Encour;ters wl/h tJlIt Zuni llldians. New York:
Viki I:g/Pe::lluin Rooks,
'[e:kel, S. (1995), Cmmng of lI&e: ]'1,1' story of our am·
by wh,)'w iiv~d if, New it,rk: New Press,

T/tomas, W. L, I'< Znaniecki, E (1921). rI:e Polish
pelleion/ in Europe anti America (\f,JL 2), l\ew Yor~:
Alfred,"', Knopf, (Original \<'\)~k pub;ished in :918)
Thor:lPSlll1, P. (2000), rhe voice of the P<l,t: Oral !:islary
(3rd ed,), :<lew YGr~: Odord Llliversily Press,
(Origillal work publ:shed 11119711)
Tirrney, W, G, (2000), Undaunted C(1urage: Lif~ his:ory
and the poslmodem chal:ellge, In 'I, K Denz:r.
.& y, $, lincoln (Lds,), ll,mdb,;ok of qualitalive
n!s<:ardl (2nd. ed.• pp. 53J-553), Tnm;SIH:d Oaks,
CA:Sag<',
Tierney, \"I, G. 120(2), Get Rel're8enting reality,
Quaiiloliw Sf(ill!c; in fiilucati,m, J5, 385-J98,
Tierney, \\\ G., &. tincoln, t S. (Eds,), (1997). Repre,
s""lalion and the text: Re-rmming the narrative
Chase: :<Iarrative Inquiry 11 679
voice. Albany: State t:ni yers i:y Ilj ;..lew ¥urk
Prtss,
Waisun, L. &: WlItsDn·Frankt", "Ht (1985).
interpre{ itlg life 11 i!ltori,,,, An Illllhwpologicai
inquiry: New Bmn~wick. NJ: Rutgers Lniven.ily
Press,
Well,s, Il S, [1994), teami:(},; from s!ran,l!ers: the art
rind methoa oj' qualillltive ilHerview sn,die,.
New York: Free Press,
Wozniak, D. F. (2002), They're aU my d:ilart'n: F05!i:r
mulheritlg it{ America, New York: I\ew York
lnivcrsily Pres;:,.
Yetman, N, R (1970), 1.ife wuJI': fhl' ''peculiar institu
tio','; Selectiolls!ram the slave narmti'le cQllection,
York: Holt, Rinehart 8< Wil:ston,