Narrative writing as method 245
Aims
Narrative writing as method:
second language identity
development in study abroad
Phil Benson
Introduction
This chapter reports and reflects upon a narrative case study of
one Hong Kong student’s experience of a six-week study-abroad
programme in the United Kingdom. This case study is one of more
than 40 that have been carried out by a team of researchers as part of a
larger project investigating the impact of study abroad on participants’
second language identities (Benson et al., 2012; Benson et al.,
20 1 3 ).1 In brief, the methodology of the study involves three phases:
(1) longitudinal data collection (pre-departure interview, on-site
introspective writing, and post-return interview), (2) the construction
of case study narratives by the researchers in collaboration with the
participants, and (3) synthesis and comparison of these narratives
using qualitative thematic analysis. Following Polkinghorne’s (1995)
distinction between ‘narrative analysis’ and ‘analysis of narratives’,
we might say that the second phase of the research involves ‘narrative
analysis’, or the construction of narratives out of non-narrative data,
while the third phase involves ‘analysis of narratives’, or the use of
qualitative methods to analyse narrative data.
As a product of the second, ‘narrative analysis’ phase of the study,
the narrative included in this chapter was an intermediate outcome
of the overall research project, which was later compared with other
participants’ narratives in order to identify ‘repeated patterns that
remain situated rather than generalized’ (Josselson, 2007: 13). The
analysis of multiple narratives will not, however, be discussed in
this chapter, which focuses instead on the construction of a single
narrative, in order to explore ‘narrative analysis’, or narrative
writing, as a strategy for analysing data and representing findings
in applied linguistics research. In the first part of the chapter, I will
introduce and present one case study narrative, and in the second
part of the chapter, I will reflect on the strategies that went into its
production.
244
The aim of the study reported in this chapter was to investigate the
impact of study abroad on participants’ second language identities.
In the context of worldwide academic mobility, study abroad is an
increasingly important aspect of the language learning scene. Both
the numbers of participating students and the variety of programmes
available are growing rapidly (Kinginger, 2009). This is especially so
in Hong Kong, where a wide variety of study-abroad programmes
in English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries are now
offered and students from secondary to postgraduate level often make
their own arrangements for long-term overseas study. By examining
experiences in a wide range of study-abroad programmes and by
focusing on their impact on second language identities, our research
team aimed to build on earlier research on Hong Kong students
studying abroad (Barkhuizen 8c Feryok, 2006; Bodycott & Crew,
2001; Brown & Crew, 20 0 8 ; Jackson, 2 0 0 8 ,2 0 1 0 ; Lee, 2009).
Theory
‘Second language identity’ is a key theoretical construct in our
research, which begins from Block’s (2007: 43) definition of language
identity as the ‘relationship between one’s sense of self and different
means of communication, understood in terms of language’. Because
identity is largely expressed through the use of language, second
language learning inevitably has some impact on the learner’s identity,
however minimal the impact may be (Benveniste, 1971). At the same
time, experiences that radically alter learners’ relationships to other
users of the languages they speak - notably migration and, potentially,
study abroad - are likely to lead to significant developments in their
language identities (Block, 2007). We therefore adopt a working
definition of second language identity as any aspect of a person’s
identity that is related to their knowledge, learning, or use of a second
language. Identity is understood to involve the articulation of inner
psychological dimensions (sense of self and imagined or desired
identities) and social-interactional dimensions (projected identities
and their interpretation by others in terms of established social
identity categories and social expectations of identity performance in
specific contexts). Second language identity development is, therefore,
best investigated using approaches that attempt to capture learners’
own perspectives on their experiences of learning and using languages
in different contexts. Narrative is central to our research, because, as
Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber (1998: 7) argue, it is ‘one of the
 246 Analysis and reporting
clearest channels for learning about the inner world’ and because it is
also a particularly apt tool to investigate and represent developments
over time.
Narrative
Each of the members of our research team brings a different perspective
on narrative research to the study. My own interest comes out of an
interest in biographical, life-history, and oral-history research in the
social sciences (Chamberlayne, Bornat & Wengraf, 2000; Goodson
& Sikes, 200 1 ; Roberts, 20 0 2 ; Thompson, 2000), which foregrounds
participants’ accounts of the social processes and historical events
they live through. As Roberts (2002: 1) puts it, biographical research
‘seeks to understand the changing experiences and outlooks of
individuals in their daily lives, what they see as important, and
how to provide interpretations of the accounts they give of their
past, present and future’. In the context of applied linguistics, this
suggests an ‘(auto)biographical’ approach to research (Benson, 2005)
that complements established approaches by focusing on learners’
retrospective accounts of long-term processes of language learning
and their contextualization in experiences of life.
From this perspective, second language learning involves both
the acquisition of knowledge and skills, and the lived experience
of developing identities as a learner and user of languages. My
perspective is also informed by the view that identities are constantly
constructed and reconstructed through historical narratives of the
self (e.g. Bruner, 20 0 1 ; Giddens, 1991). As the nineteenth-century
German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey expressed this in writing on
autobiography, ‘the person who seeks the connecting threads in the
history of his life has already, from different points of view, created
a coherence in that life which he is now putting into words’ (cited
in Thompson, 2000: 54). Because we define our identities through
the stories we tell about ourselves and our communities, narratives
are, as Bernard and Ryan (2010: 252) succinctly put it, ‘a great way
to get at identities’. In applied linguistics, learners’ accounts provide
access, not only to long-term language learning experiences, but also
to historically situated second language identities constituted within
the coherence o f ‘language learning careers’ (Benson, 2011).
This approach to narrative tends to favour a ‘big story’ approach,
which typically involves ‘substantial data collected over an extended
period of time, such as multiple interviews, a series of written
reflections, and field notes’ and a focus on ‘the content of the narratives:
what they are about; what was told; and why, when, where, and by
Narrative writing as method 247
whom’ (Barkhuizen, 2011: 401). Critics of this approach suggest
that ‘big story’ research fails to recognize how narratives vary in
content and form according to the discursive purposes of narrators in
particular contexts of interaction (Bamberg, 20 0 7 ; Pavlenko, 2007;
Stokoe & Edwards, 20 0 7 ; Vasquez, 2011). Articulating a view that
undermines much of the biographical, life-history, and oral-history
research on which I draw, Bamberg (2007: 171) claims that when we
study narratives, ‘we are neither accessing speakers’ past experiences,
nor their reflections on their past experiences’. The ‘small stories’
perspective that these critics advocate focuses, instead, on stories told
in everyday interaction and on the ways in which ‘selves and identities
are “don e” in interactions ... in which narratives are made use of’
(p. 173). (See also chapters by Early 8c Norton, De Fina, and Rugen,
this volume.)
At the heart of this critique lie complex ontological and epistemo-
logical questions concerning the relationship of autobiographical
narratives to real-world processes and events. I will not go into
these questions here, other than to express the view that the value
of narrative research does not stand or fall on an assumption of the
‘veracity’ of narratives. In oral history, for example, participants’
recollections are valued, not because they represent the ‘truth’ of what
happened at a particular moment of time - which is ultimately non-
recoverable - but because they offer alternative perspectives to those
found in official documents or contemporary printed accounts, from
which their voices are absent. The same might be said of language
learning narratives. They offer a valuable complementary perspective
to established research approaches in applied linguistics, especially in
regard to those aspects of language learning that are difficult to access
through methodologies which neglect or suppress the voices of those
who actually do the learning.
Context
The narrative included in this chapter tells the story of one Hong Kong
student’s experiences of study abroad in the UK, drawn from more
than 40 narratives relating to a variety of study-abroad programmes.
The youngest participants in the larger sample were a group of 14- to
15-year-old secondary school students, who chose to complete their
secondary school education in the UK. The oldest was a postgraduate
student who spent a year in the UK studying for a Master’s degree.
In between were a number of groups of secondary school students
and university undergraduates who participated in study tours and
exchange programmes ranging in length from a few weeks to a whole

248 Analysis and reporting
semester. Selina was an undergraduate Early Childhood Education
student, who participated in a six-week programme based at a UK
university, where the group received English lessons, visited local
kindergartens, and travelled around England in their spare time.
Data
The data for Selina’s narrative came from three sources:
1. A pre-departure interview conducted by the project research as­
sistant. The interview schedule was relatively unstructured and
consisted of prompts asking Selina to (a) describe her previ­
ous experiences of learning English (especially out-of-class or
overseas), (b) describe her goals and expectations for the study-
abroad trip, and (c) comment on how she expected to change
during the trip.
2. A blog written while Selina was in the UK, which was shared
with the research team and her family and friends; her entries
were regular and often accompanied by photographs.
3. A post-return interview, also conducted by the project research
assistant. Before the interview, I reviewed the pre-departure in­
terview transcript and blog entries with the research assistant,
who then carried out the interview. Again, the interview schedule
was relatively unstructured. Selina was prompted to (a) describe
her experience of study abroad and any significant incidents that
had occurred, (b) to evaluate whether it had matched up to her
goals and expectations, and (c) to comment on how she thought
she had changed.
As in many large-scale funded projects in Hong Kong, the data were
collected by research assistants under the guidance of academic staff
and then analysed by the academics with the help of the research
assistants. This approach is part of the culture of funded research
in Hong Kong, where funding is provided more or less exclusively
for the employment of research assistants, but it has two important
implications for the process of data analysis: one concerned with the
relationship between the analyst and the research participant (i.e.
myself and Selina) and the other with the languages in which the
research work is carried out.
In this case, because Selina was studying at the institution in which
I work, I had met her before her first interview, when I took five
students from her programme out to lunch as a token of appreciation
for their participation in the study. During the data-collection process,
however, I had very little contact with her. I met her occasionally on
Narrative writing as method 249
campus before and after the trip, but the conversation was usually of
a brief ‘hello-goodbye’ kind, and while she was away in the UK I had
no contact with her at all. The project research assistant, on the other
hand, developed a close relationship with her and was able to provide
helpful background information on her personality and interests. The
main implication of this is that when the data was handed over to me
for analysis, I had little contact with or knowledge of the participant.
As we are a team of four academic researchers and the participants
were contacted under a wide variety of circumstances, the relationship
between analyst and participant varied from case to case. To achieve
a degree of consistency, we opted for distance and decided that we
should analyse data and write up narratives only for participants
that we did not know well. If one of us did know a participant well
(e.g. in the case of several participants that I had interviewed myself),
her data would be passed to another member of the team. In smaller
projects, I have interviewed, transcribed, and analysed data myself,
and, as a result, I have developed close personal relationships with
the participants, which no doubt influenced the final outcomes of the
research (e.g. Benson, 2012). In this much larger project, the need
to collect and analyse multiple narratives led to a greater distance
between the researchers and the participants. This was also reflected
in the nature of the ‘collaboration’ between researcher and participant
in the writing of the narratives. After a draft was written up by the
researcher, the participant was asked to read and comment on it and
to suggest additions, subtractions, or rewording. In most cases, the
amendments were minimal and related to questions of fact. This
suggests that the narratives were collaboratively produced mainly in
the sense that the researchers re-articulated the participants’ words
in the form of sequential and coherently organized accounts of their
experiences.
The second implication concerns language. Selina speaks
Cantonese as a first language and English as a second language; I
know some Cantonese, but not enough to conduct an interview or
read an interview transcript. As the research assistant was fluent in
both Cantonese and English, the participants were invited to use the
language of their choice. Selina chose to be interviewed in Cantonese
(but sometimes spoke English) and wrote her blog in English
(occasionally using some Chinese). Following a practice that is again
part of the culture of funded research in Hong Kong, the research
assistant then simultaneously translated and transcribed the Chinese
data into English. Ideally, narrative studies would be carried out in
a shared first language, but it is in the nature of second language
learning research that this will rarely be possible. In her life-history
250 Analysis and reporting
study of access to classes in English as a second language for migrant
women in Canada, Kouritzin (2000) elected to interview in English
out of respect for the women’s efforts to learn the language, whereas
Pavlenko (2007) has advocated collecting data in the first language,
or in two languages if the participant is bilingual. In my experience,
although choices of these kinds have considerable implications for the
form and content of the data, there are usually practical limitations
related to resources and the demands that can be made on research
participants. In smaller projects, I have used English with Cantonese
speakers out of necessity, and only when I have judged that they
would speak freely in English. In general, however, I have found that
participants speak more freely (and, therefore, provide more in-depth
data) when they are able to express their experiences and ideas in
the language they know best. I have also found that they tend to
speak more freely when interviewed by research assistants who are
close to their age. In the situation in which I work, I have found that
problems associated with the use of translated data are outweighed
by the quality of the data itself.
One other point worth noting concerns the status of the data
as ‘narrative’ or ‘non-narrative’. In using Polkinghorne’s (1995)
distinction between ‘narrative analysis’ and ‘analysis of narratives’,
I am partly influenced by the fact that I analysed but did not collect
the data. My job as data analyst was, therefore, to turn the data I was
given into a narrative, which the research team had agreed should
take the form of a 1,500 to 2,0 0 0 word, sequentially organized story,
written in the third person, and covering certain specified phases in
the study-abroad experience. In describing the data as ‘non-narrative’
data, therefore, I am really saying that it came to me in the form
of interview transcripts and blog entries, rather than a coherently
structured story. Yet the data clearly had a narrative structure of
sorts, because the data collection was designed to encourage the
participants to develop their ideas in a way that would make it easier
for us to write up the narrative later. There were also numerous
‘small stories’ within the data that found their way into the larger
narrative. As a ‘narrative analyst’, therefore, my role was not exactly
to transform ‘non-narrative’ data into ‘narrative’ form. My role was,
rather, to draw out the narrative elements that were already present in
the data in order to translate Selina’s narrative into a more condensed
and coherent form, which would allow it to be compared with other
narratives. As we intended that some of the narratives would be
published in research reports, my role was also to produce a readable
narrative that would say something of interest to the community of
applied linguistics readers.
Narrative writing as method 251
Analysis
I have begun, however, to do what I did not intend to do, by talking
about the kind of analysis that went into the writing of the narrative
before giving readers the opportunity to read it. I will, therefore,
move directly on to Selina’s story and return to the question of data
analysis later under the heading of ‘Reflections’. For the present, I
want to ask readers to bear in mind that this narrative was originally
intended as an intermediate product of a research project based
on multiple narratives, but it is presented here as the outcome of a
single case study. By allowing the narrative to occupy the whole of
the ‘Findings’ section of this chapter, I also want to signal that, in
my view, the findings of ‘narrative analysis’ studies are usually to
be found in the narrative itself. We are more accustomed, perhaps,
to expect findings to take the form of short statements that address
research questions. It may help, therefore, if I say that I believe that
this narrative addresses two important questions in our research: first,
‘what is actually involved in second language identity development
in study abroad?’, and second, ‘what is the role of individual roles,
expectations, and engagement in this development?’
Findings
Selina was a second-year student of Early Childhood Education at the
time of the study. She had moved to Hong Kong from Mainland China
with her family when she was four years old, and although she now
speaks fluent Cantonese, her first language was Hakka, which she
still speaks at home. Selina attended Chinese-medium schools, where
she had typical experiences of learning English in classrooms, with
little contact with the language outside school. She was a person who
‘wouldn’t take the initiative’ to learn English during her schooldays,
who would even avoid English, although she admired people who
were good at it.
In her Early Childhood Education programme, apart from English
language enhancement classes taken by all students in the institution
and one English-medium course within her programme, all her classes
were in Chinese. But Selina also worked as a part-time student helper
at the institution’s International Office, where she spoke English
with the director (an Australian), with visiting exchange students,
and when making telephone calls to overseas institutions. She also
had some casual contact with two exchange students whom she had
met at the International Office in one of her classes, but before her
trip to the UK, she felt ‘a bit stressed’ when talking to them. Selina
 Narrative writing as method 253
252 Analysis and reporting
the UK, which she did by taking a large number of photographs and
was an ‘outgoing’ person and felt that she now took the initiative
by keeping a daily blog. Selina hoped that, as a result of this trip, she
to use English more than others, who ‘just talk when it is absolutely
would ‘widen her horizon’, see the world more from other people s
necessary’. She had also made a Hong Kong friend with similar views
perspectives, and be more mature in dealing with problems. She was
on English and they tried to speak English together in class and during
aware that young English people were more independent and open-
breaks.
minded than young Hong Kong people and she hoped to learn some
Before leaving for the UK, Selina felt that she had ‘average’ ability
in English and that she couldn’t say that she was ‘good enough to cope of this herself. She also wanted to make new friends.
In the UK, Selina wrote her blog and uploaded photographs every
with daily communication’. She could ‘cope with simple chat’, but
evening after dinner. Her host family consisted of Jane, a single
couldn’t ‘go deeper’ and would feel scared when she had to talk about
working woman, her boyfriend Bill, and her adult daughter Rebecca,
something complicated or would even stop talking. She liked English
communication, but hated grammar and would find it troublesome who both visited from time to time. They lived in a small semi­
detached house with a garden on the edge of town. Selina slept in
to learn English for examinations again. Nevertheless, she was ‘happy
the daughter’s bedroom and had a free run of the house. She usually
to use English to make friends’. Selina also found that being good
made her own breakfast in the morning, went to the university in the
at English gave you higher status in Hong Kong among friends and
daytime, and helped Jane make dinner in the evening. Usually, they
family. For example, her' classmates were impressed that she was
ate dinner in front of the television, while Jane watched her favourite
willing to use English to approach exchange students on campus. In
series. At these times they would chat freely and Jane would answer
this sense, English ‘symbolizes self-identity’ in Hong Kong.
questions about the programmes they were watching. After dinner
Looking forward to her trip to the UK, Selina said that she had
and some more chatting, Selina would go up to her room and use
two objectives: to improve English proficiency and to learn about the
the Internet. At other times she would join Jane, Bill, and Rebecca in
kindergartens there. English classes, visits to schools, and talking with
the garden. Selina made friends with both Jane and Bill and felt that
her homestay family would be the main ways to improve English. She
she was part of the family. She only regretted that they did not take
was more interested in visiting kindergartens, however, because she
her out with them at weekends. However, she did go out on several
did not think that her English would improve much in six weeks.
trips with her friend Bernadette’s host mother. Although she formed a
She hoped that she would be ‘more natural towards English’ and not
strong relationship with Jane, the relationship soured after her return
avoid speaking, believing that ‘learning real English means staying in
to Hong Kong, when Selina received an email implying that she or
a host family and using English throughout the stay’. Conversely, she
one of her friends may have stolen a necklace that had gone missing
did not feel that she would learn much from the English classes at the
just before she left. Selina was distressed: she felt that the relationship
host university that were arranged as part of the programme.
was ‘broken’ and all her good impressions of the programme had
Selina was a little nervous about staying with her host family on her
own, but hoped they would be friendly, take her to meet their friends crashed.
Two days after her arrival, Selina was struggling to keep up the
and relatives at weekends, and ‘become friends in the end’, although
pace of using English every day, but expressed her determination in
she knew from earlier cohorts that relationships with host families
could be difficult. She was also concerned that she might not be able a blog entry:
to communicate with her hosts if she had to say something like, ‘The Found that it requires lot of energy to communicate in English for 24 hours.
toilet doesn’t flush properly.’ One last concern was with her level of Brain keeps moving; ear keeps listening; mouth keeps talking. Even though
independence; Selina was accustomed to depending on her family I haven’t done any hard exercise, I’m tired when I get back home. Want to
members and friends and seldom did things by herself. She wanted to go to bed right after shower, but I still stay up to watch TV and chat for a
be more independent and mature, for example, by not refusing to eat while. I will try my best to learn, no matter it’s only 6-week.
food if she didn’t like it. She had been overseas once before on a trip
to Australia with her family in her first year of secondary school and In her later blog entries, Selina did not mention English very much
recalled that she had experienced difficulty using English and that her at all, apart from describing a few successes in communicating, such
parents had commented on this. Because her memory of that trip was as using English to find her way to Newcastle by train. Later entries
‘blurred’, she wanted to find ways to store her memories of the trip to focused more on enjoyable excursions, events within the Hong Kong
254 Analysis and reporting
group, including two birthday celebrations, classes at the university,
and visits to schools. Although Selina appreciated the teaching
methods in the university English classes, she felt that they were
mostly a waste of time. She enjoyed and learned more from visits to
local sites and museums, and excursions to nearby towns, as well as
the week-long visit to a local kindergarten.
In spite of a few difficult experiences, the Hong Kong group
bonded together well, and, except when she was at home with her
hosts, Selina spent most of her time with her Hong Kong friends. For
a while, the group members tried to speak English to each other on
campus, but this did not last. Selina was the last to give up. Towards
the end of the visit, Selina wrote in her blog that she would miss the
company of the group when she got back to Hong Kong, as they
were unlikely to meet very often on campus. The one thing that she
felt was missing from her time on the UK university campus was that
there was little or no contact with local students. But overall, Selina’s
blog entries showed that every day held something interesting in it
and that, in spite of frequent bad weather, she always looked forward
to the next day:
really hate this weather, freezing all the time. Just want to stay in bed, but
silly me thinks that it is a waste of time on the valuable days in [name of
city]. Keeping my eyes open because I think sleeping is a waste of time.
On her return to Hong Kong, Selina felt that her English had ‘really
improved’. While it was difficult to understand her host family when
they talked to each other, because of their accents and the speed of
their speech, she had been able to understand them when they talked
directly to her. She was now no longer ‘scared of talking to foreigners’
or timid when interacting with exchange students in the International
Office. Although she knew that her grammar was still incorrect, she
didn’t feel scared any more. This was mainly due to Jane, who was very
experienced in talking to overseas students and helped her a great deal.
She found people who could speak English ‘very attractive’ and wished
that she could speak it like ‘local people’, although she knew that was
a dream: ‘my Hong Kong accent will be haunting me my whole life’. At
the same time, she still felt that six weeks was too short a time to make
any significant change, and that this had affected the motivation of the
whole group, who had preferred to spend their limited time in England
having fun. If her vocabulary had improved, it was mainly due to Jane.
Selina also described several things that she had done to work on her
English: Jane had shown her how to switch on the subtitles on local TV
programmes, she had asked the meaning of new words and kept them
in a notebook, and read a lot of magazines.
Narrative writing as method 255
The trip generally fulfilled Selina’s expectations in that she had
practised and improved her English and had a good experience of
visiting kindergartens. The most problematic part for her was that
the Hong Kong students had no chance to attend class with local
students. Although they had been encouraged to use English among
themselves, this was not ‘immersion’ and pressure of work had tended
to make them revert to Cantonese. Selina did think that the experience
of study abroad had changed her in some ways. She felt that she had
succeeded in becoming more independent in finding her way around,
which was a goal that she achieved the first time she found her own
way from her homestay to the campus. She had also learnt to care for
herself by eating and drinking properly, and going to bed at a normal
time. In relation to English, she had become ‘braver to speak’ and
now felt that she could speak English and loved to do so in her work
in the International Office. ‘That’s very obvious for me’, she said, ‘I
can open my mouth. I finally feel I am qualified to sit at the counter
of the International Office.’
Reflections
In my experience, Polkinghorne’s (1995) distinction between narrative
analysis and analysis of narratives can be difficult to get across, partly
because ‘narrative analysis’ is widely used as a synonym for ‘narrative
research’ or ‘narrative inquiry’. Bernard and Ryan’s (2010) manual on
analysing qualitative data, for example, includes a chapter on narrative
analysis, but the approaches covered - sociolinguistics, hermeneutics,
phenomenology, and grounded theory - turn out to be qualitative
approaches to the analysis of narrative data. How researchers use
narrative writing to analyse and represent data is a significant omission
in an otherwise comprehensive book. Polkinghorne’s distinction is
also problematic, because it does not readily lead to a division into
two types of empirical studies; if the distinction is a meaningful one,
we would have to categorize many studies as ‘hybrid’, involving both
‘narrative analysis’ and ‘analysis of narratives’. One characteristic
approach in applied linguistics, for example, is for researchers to gather
data through interviews, conversations, or correspondence, write up
the data in narrative form, and then conduct some further analysis
of these narratives. This approach is explicitly adopted in Benson et
al. (2012), where Selina’s narrative is one of nine parallel narratives
that are thematically analysed. In the writing of Benson et al. (2012),
however, the discussion of multiple narratives came at the expense
of a partial ‘erasure’ of the individual narratives. Tsui’s (2007) study
of a Chinese English language teacher’s career is, perhaps, a better
 Narrative writing as method 257
2 56 Analysis and reporting
review, the narrative (which at that point constituted around 80% of
example of narrative analysis as such, because the teacher’s career
the paper), and a short conclusion. Reviewers asked us, however, to
narrative is really the core of the paper. The narrative is, nevertheless,
explain how we had analysed the data (to say that we had written it
followed by further analysis in terms of Wenger’s (1998) theory of
up as a story was not enough) and what conclusions we drew (again,
identity formation. to ask readers to draw their own conclusions was not enough). A
In asking readers to accept that the ‘findings’ of the case study
‘methodology’ section was added (it was around this time, incidentally,
reported in this chapter are to be found in Selina’s narrative itself,
that I first came across Polkinghorne’s distinction and realized tha.t
therefore, I am trying to isolate a particular moment in narrative
we were engaged in ‘narrative analysis’), the ‘conclusion’ expanded,
inquiry, at which researchers themselves engage in narrative writing
and the narrative correspondingly shortened. The reviewers’ requests
as both a method of inquiry (Richardson, 1994) and a method of
were reasonable enough, but their effect was to draw the paper back
communicating findings to readers (Ely, 2007) —a moment at which
a little into the mainstream of applied linguistics research writing by
narrative writing and the publication of research outcomes coincide.
softening the intended challenge to readers’ expectations of a more
In applied linguistics, this moment is mainly found in autobiographical
studies of researchers’ own experiences of language learning and/or conventional presentation.
I am now about to test reviewers’ patience once again by withholding
teaching (see, for example, contributions to Belcher 8c Connor, 2001;
my own interpretation of Selina’s narrative. I do this partly because I
Benson 8c Nunan, 20 0 2 ; Casanave 8c Schecter, 1997; Johnson 8c
believe that narrative research should challenge readers to read and
Golombek, 2 0 0 2 ; Nunan 8c Choi, 20 1 0 ; Ogulnick, 2000). Readers
interpret narratives themselves. Although I have my own interpretation
of such collections may question whether the writing in them is really
of how the narrative connects with the research issues I addressed
‘research’ writing, or whether it is simply memoir or reflection. Much
earlier, I feel that by explaining that interpretation at this point I
depends on one’s definition of research, here, although in Benson and
would be closing down alternative interpretations (including those
Nunan’s (2002) collection, there was a sustained attempt to produce
that I might come up with myself tomorrow). More importantly, I
autobiographical papers that would address research questions
want to highlight the idea that a considerable amount of interpretive
through rigorous (narrative) analysis of data (see, for example, He,
work has already gone into the writing of Selina’s narrative. It was
20 0 2 , on language learning strategies; Lim, 2002, on motivation; and
in the writing of the narrative, in other words, that I did the kind of
Sakui, 2002, on language teacher development). There is, however,
interpretive work that might be expected of a ‘discussion section in
the additional problem that autobiographical work typically reports
a more conventional applied linguistics research paper. Viewed as a
the experiences of published academics who also happen to be, or
research outcome, a narrative is quite different from, for example, a set
have been, language learners or teachers. In the unlikely event that
of questionnaire results. To offer an interpretation of such a narrative
Selina were to write her own study-abroad narrative for publication,
would not be to interpret the data, as such, but to interpret one s own
she would have great difficulty in persuading an academic publisher
interpretation of the data.
to publish it, simply because she is not an academic. We are, therefore,
I will, however, say something about narrative writing as an
left with the problematic question of how such narratives can be
analytical methodology. In explaining how I wrote Selina s narrative,
incorporated into research through our own narrative writing.
I am inclined to follow Clough (2002: 6) (who draws on samples of
Two of my own previous forays into narrative inquiry have involved
research data to create fictional narratives) and suggest that:
narrative writing and an effort to include as much narrative as possible
in the published work (Benson, Chik 8c Lim, 2003; Chik 8c Benson, how I write a story will not be a matter of m eth od as such, but of personal,
2008). At the core of Chik and Benson (2008) is a narrative analysing moral and ethical response to research experiences ... What I am offering
a Hong Kong student’s experiences of studying for an undergraduate here is not a model to be followed but an example to be reflected upon.
degree in the UK that takes up a little more than half of the paper. There The problem, here, is essentially to go beyond the simple idea that
is a point in the paper where we state that we intend the narrative to
I read the data carefully and then wrote it up as a story with a
stand for itself as the outcome of our research’ (p. 166) and then, as
beginning, a middle, and an end. There were, in fact, certain
if to contradict ourselves, proceed with a page-long analysis of two
analytical procedures that can be outlined. Firstly, I read the data
key points that emerge from it. The story behind this is that the paper several times, in the order that it was collected, to gain an overall
was first submitted in the form of a short introduction and literature
 258 Analysis and reporting
sense of who Selina was and what she was trying to say. Through
repeated readings, I tried to work myself into her way of thinking. I
then eliminated data that were obviously irrelevant to the research
issues in which we were interested and highlighted sections where
she spoke about, or hinted at, development or change (at this stage
keeping an open mind about whether or not these developments
were related to second language identity). As I gradually reduced
the quantity of data that would remain in the narrative, I also
began to cluster data extracts together into what would eventually
appear as thematically structured paragraphs. The data already had
a rudimentary ‘beginning-middle-end’ structure, which contributed
to the sequential ordering of paragraphs, but at this stage data
extracts were also moved around in an attempt to create greater
coherence. Lastly, I began connecting extracts together into coherent
paragraphs, a process that involved weaving my own words into
Selina’s, while trying as far as possible to retain her wording where
it mattered.
It is worth noting, also, that a number of significant choices
were made concerning the format of the narrative before the
writing began. Firstly came the decision that the narratives would
be written in the third person, avoiding reported speech as far as
possible, as opposed to being written as if by Selina herself (for
a worked discussion of these alternatives, see Ely, 2 0 0 7 : 5 7 2 -3 ).
Next came the decision to write the narratives as ‘participant
stories’ (avoiding the more typical style of authorial storytelling
illustrated by the alternation of third-person data extracts and
first-person data extracts used in Chik 8c Benson, 20 0 8 ). Last
came the decision not simply to tell Selina’s story on her behalf,
but rather to construct it in such a way that it would address
the issues that were of interest to us (a process that began with
the design of the very first interview). This last decision was the
crucial one. The result was, I would argue, not simply a text that
is open to any kind of interpretation (which therefore requires
further interpretation before it counts as a research text). Selina’s
narrative is, instead, already a research text - an outcome of the
analysis of data to address questions of interest to a research
community through the act of narrative writing. It is, in this sense,
a text in which research ‘findings’ are there to be found, although
they are less definitely and less succinctly stated than they might be
in other types of research. This lack of succinctness is intentional,
of course, because I believe that it is the object of narrative inquiry
to enlighten and direct our attention to issues of concern, while
at the same time leaving them open to further interpretations (see
Narrative writing as method 259
Nelson, this volume). Readers may read Selina’s narrative with the
intention of discovering my interpretation of what it says about
the research questions it addresses, but I suspect that their reward
will lie more in the discovery of their own interpretations.
Further research
This chapter arose from both my own work in narrative research
and an interest in the form and style of other researchers’ narrative
research work. From my own efforts to publish narrative work, I
am painfully aware that the work that does get published is not
necessarily the kind of work that narrative researchers would like
to publish. There is clearly an inherent conservatism in reviewing
and publication processes in applied linguistics that tends to draw
experimental work back towards mainstream conventions and
produce uneasy compromises. While I have been asked to situate my
writing within the conventions of particular journals (i.e. those that
are established by previously published papers), I have never been
asked to take a m ore experimental approach. While I have been asked
to give more details about how data were analysed, I have never been
asked to give these details after the findings of the study have been
presented, as I have done in this chapter. One of the main effects
of these kinds of processes on narrative research, I believe, is that
it is far easier to publish ‘analysis of narratives’ papers than it is to
publish ‘narrative analysis’ papers that depend upon the inclusion of
substantial sections of narrative text. When ‘narrative analysis’ papers
are published, it also seems that more and more space is being devoted
to discussion of theory, methodology, and discussion of findings and
less and less to the narratives themselves.
In considering possibilities for further research, therefore, I
would like to focus not so much on where narrative research is
taking us in terms of its contribution to knowledge, but more on
the question of diversity of approach. There is a need, I believe,
for greater openness in the applied linguistics research community
to different styles of writing, or of representing research findings
(see Nelson, this volume, who makes the same point). There is
also a corresponding need among narrative and qualitative
methodological communities to explore and validate a wider range
of approaches, especially those in which narrative writing itself
is viewed as a method of data analysis. It is, perhaps, only when
narrative writing is understood as a means of simultaneously
generating and representing research findings that it will be fully
accepted as research writing.

260 Analysis and reporting
Conclusion
This chapter has been built around a narrative case study of one
student’s experiences of study abroad and their impact on her second
language identity. In a more conventionally structured paper, I would
probably conclude by summing up what I thought that impact was. As
the focus of the chapter is on methodological practice, I will conclude
instead with a brief comment on the more general question of what
kinds o f things such a narrative case study is likely to tell us about
these kinds o f questions.
Discussing a variety of forms of experimental writing, Ely (2007:
574) makes the point that‘much of our narrative research is to provide
a sense of how other people experience life’. In this sense, narrative
research writing is a matter of inviting ‘our readers to make sense
rather than telling them what to think’. As I noted earlier, Selina’s
narrative has been analysed along with eight parallel narratives in
Benson et al. (2012), where it provides certain insights into the kinds
of things that may be involved in the development of second language
identity in study abroad. The other narratives supported some of
these insights and provided additional insights of their own, and the
outcome of the paper was, in a sense, a conceptual framework for
future research based on three dimensions of second language identity
development. This paper was, in other words, a matter o f ‘analysis of
narratives’ rather than ‘narrative analysis’; the writing of the paper
was also more a matter of ‘telling readers what to think’ than it was
of inviting them to ‘make sense’.
In terms of the development of generalized theory, therefore,
Selina’s narrative becomes m ore meaningful when insights that it
offers are synthesized with insights from other parallel narratives. Yet
there was also a sense that in the process of synthesizing insights from
multiple narratives, we were moving away from narrative research
into broader areas of qualitative inquiry (as one of our team members
asked,‘What has happened to the idea that this is a narrative study?’).
In publishing a single narrative in this chapter, therefore, I have tried
to do something essentially different. Selina’s narrative cannot really
address the broad questions that we are asking about second language
identity and study abroad on its own. It needs the help of other
narratives and the help of researchers who are prepared to engage
with theory on the basis of data analysis. Yet as Richardson (1994:
517) argues in the context of her discussion of writing as a method of
inquiry, the urge to ‘take on the omniscient voice of science, the view
from everywhere’ is actually a problem in the social sciences, because
it devalues partial knowledge. A post-modernist position, she argues,
Narrative writing as method 261
distrusts assumptions of omniscience, generality, and authority, but
it ‘does allow us to know “something” without claiming to know
everything’. Having ‘partial, local, historical knowledge’, she argues,
‘is still knowing’ (p. 518). W hile‘analysis of narratives’, then, involves
a certain urge towards ‘omniscience’, ‘narrative analysis’ involves
a different kind of urge to open up fields of partial knowledge for
critical exploration, which is equally important in narrative research.
Notes
1. This paper is based on the project ‘Second language identity
and study abroad: a Hong Kong-based study’ (R Benson, G.
Barkhuizen, R Bodycott & J. Brown) funded by the General
Research Fund of the Hong Kong Research Grants Council
(G R F840009 2 0 1 0-2011). I am grateful to Wang Danping and
Joanna Lee for the considerable contributions they have made
to this project as research assistants.
References
Bamberg, M. (2007) ‘Stories: big or small - why do we care?’, in Bamberg, M.
(ed.) Narrative: State o f the Art, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 165-74.
Barkhuizen, G. (2011) ‘Narrative knowledging in TESOL’, TESOL Quarterly,
45(3), 391-414.
Barkhuizen, G. and Feryok, A. (2006) ‘Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of a
short-term international experience programme’, Asia-Pacific Journal o f
Teacher Education, 34(1), 115-34.
Belcher, D. and Connor, U. (eds.) (2001) Reflections on Multiliterate Lives,
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Benson, P. (2005) ‘(Autobiography) and learner diversity’, in Benson, P. and Nun-
an, D. (eds.) Learners’ Stories: D ifference and Diversity in lan gu age Learn­
ing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 2-21.
Benson, P. (2011) ‘Language learning careers as a unit of analysis in narrative
research’, TESO L Quarterly, 45(3), 545-53.
Benson, P. (2012) ‘Learning to teach across borders: Mainland Chinese student
English teachers in Hong Kong schools’, Language Teaching Research,
16(4), 483-99.
Benson, P., Barkhuizen, G., Bodycott, P., and Brown, J. (2012) ‘Second language
identity and study abroad’, Applied Linguistics Review, 3(1), 173-93.
Benson, P., Barkhuizen, G., Bodycott, P., and Brown, J. (2013) Second Language
Identity in Narratives o f Study A broad, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Benson, P., Chik, A., and Lim, H.-Y. (2003) ‘Becoming autonomous in an Asian
context: autonomy as a sociocultural process’, in Palfreyman, D. and
Smith, R. C. (eds.) Learner Autonomy Across Cultures, London: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. 23-40.
262 Analysts and reporting
Benson, P. and Nunan, D. (eds.) (2002) ‘The experience of language learning’,
special issue of the H ong Kong Journal o f Applied Linguistics, 7(2).
Benveniste, E. (1971) Problems in General Linguistics, trans. M. E. Meek, Coral
Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
Bernard, H. R. and Ryan, G. W. (2010) Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic
A pproaches, Los Angeles: Sage.
Block, D. (2007) Second Language Identities, New York: Continuum.
Bodycott, P. and Crew, V. (eds.) (2001) Language and Cultural Immersion:
Perspectives on Short Term Study an d Residence A broad, Hong Kong: Hong
Kong Institute of Education.
Brown, J. and Crew, V. (2008) ‘Talking to the locals: community research and
Hong Kong students in an English language immersion program’, in Burton,
J. and Burns, A. (eds.) Language Teacher Research in Australia and New
Zealand, Alexandria, VA: TESOL, pp. 9-23.
Bruner, J. (2001) ‘Self-making and world-making’, in Brockmeier, J. and Carbaugh,
D. (eds.) Narrative and Identity: Studies in Autobiography, S elf an d Culture,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 25-37.
Casanave, C. P. and Schecter, S. R. (eds.) (1997) On Becom ing a Language
Educator: Personal Essays on Professional D evelopm ent, Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chamberlayne, P., Bornat, J., and Wengraf, T. (eds.) (2000) The Turn to
Biographical M ethods in Social Science: Comparative Issues and Examples,
London: Routledge.
Chik, A. and Benson, P. (2008) ‘Frequent flyer: a narrative of overseas study in
English’, in Kalaja, P., Menezes, V., and Barcelos, A. M. F (eds.) Narratives
o f Learning and Teaching EFL, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
pp.155-68.
Clough, P. (2002) Narratives and Fictions in Educational Research, Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Ely, M. (2007) ‘In-forming re-presentations’, in Clandinin, J. (ed.) H an dbook o f
Narrative Inquiry: M apping a M ethodology, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.
567-98.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: S elf an d Society in the Late
Modern Age, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Goodson, I. and Sikes, P. (2001) L ife History Research in Educational Settings:
Learning from Lives, Buckingham: Open University Press.
He, A.-E. (2002) ‘Learning English in different linguistic and socio-cultural
contexts’, Hong Kong Journal o f Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 107-21.
Jackson, J. (2008) Language, Identity and Study Abroad: Sociocultural Perspectives,
London: Equinox.
Jackson, J. (2010) Intercultural Journeys: From Study to R esidence A broad,
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson, K. E. and Golombek, P. R. (eds.) (2002) Teachers’ Narrative Inquiry as
Professional Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Josselson, R. (2007) ‘Narrative research and the challenge of accumulating
knowledge’, in Bamberg, M. (ed.) Narrative: State o f the Art, Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, pp. 7-16.
Narrative writing as method 263
Kinginger, C. (2009) Language Learning and Study A broad, London: Palgrave
Macmillan. J
Kouritzin, S. (2000) ‘Immigration mothers redefine access to ESL classes:
contradiction and ambivalence’, Journal o f Multilingual and Multicultural
D evelopment, 21(1), 14-19.
Lee, J. F. K. (2009) ‘ESL student teachers’ perceptions of a short-term overseas
immersion programme’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1095-104.
Lieblich, A.,Tuval-Mashiach, R., and Zilber,T. (1998) Narrative Research: R ead­
ing, Analysis, and Interpretation, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lim, H.-Y. (2002) ‘The interaction of motivation, perception and environment:
one EFL learner’s experience’, Hong Kong Journal o f Applied Linguistics,
7(2), 91-106.
Nunan, D. and Choi, J. (eds.) (2010) Language and Culture: Reflective Narratives
and the Emergence o f Identity, London: Routledge.
Ogulnick, K. (ed.) (2000) Language Crossings: Negotiating the S elf in a
Multicultural World, New York: Teachers College Press.
Pavlenko, A. (2007) ‘Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics’,
Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 163-88.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995) ‘Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis’,
Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5-23.
Richardson, L. (1994) ‘Writing: a method of inquiry’, in Denzin, N. K. and
Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) H andbook o f Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, pp. 516-29.
Roberts, B. (2002) Biographical Research, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Sakui, K. (2002) ‘Swiss cheese syndrome: knowing myself as a learner and
teacher’, Hong Kong Journal o f Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 136-51.
Stokoe, E. and Edwards, D. (2007) ‘Story formulations in talk-in-interaction’, in
Bamberg, M. (ed.) Narrative: State o f the Art, Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
pp. 69-79.
Thompson, P. (2000) The Voice o f the Past: Oral History, 3rd edition, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2007) ‘The complexities of identity formation: a narrative inquiry
of an EFL teacher’, TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 657-80.
Vasquez, C. (2011) ‘TESOL, teacher identity and the need for “small story”
research’, TESO L Quarterly, 45(3), 535-45.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities o f Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.