Narragating’ the labyrinth of a qualitative, narrative approach
4.5 Creating data and crafting narratives
4.5.4 Conversations and reflections
4.5.4.1 Complexities and power dynamics of co-construction: whose story is it anyway?
One person may be speaking, but stories are told with - not only to - listeners who are part of the storytelling. Storytelling is the recursive elaboration of the relationship between those sharing the story.
(Frank, 2000, p. 354)
Recognition of the significance of collaborative research and the vital role of participants is escalating (Angrosino & de Pérez, 2003; Creswell, 2007; Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). This means that, increasingly, the researcher and participants are called upon to actively interact, collaborate and reflect, as partners, to discuss and craft meaning of narrative accounts.
Salmon and Riessman (2008, p. 80) put it simply: “all narratives are, in a fundamental sense, co-constructed”. Narrative interviews, Georgakopoulou (2006a) agrees, are interactive, open- ended, fluid and dynamic. As such, the researcher and participants co-author or co-draft narratives, affording each a voice in such narratives, which signals a shift towards
‘narratives-in-interaction’. This notion of ‘narratives-in-interaction’ not only has consequence for identity research, but also coheres well with a poststructuralist framework. Co- construction, therefore, is an innovative strategy of crafting narratives which ruptures notions of an active teller and a passive listener. And so, central to such a process of co-construction, not surprisingly, is the crucial need to listen (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2007; Elliott, 2005; Plummer, 2001; Riessman, 2008; Shannon, 2011). Being a good listener is pivotal to
“coax the story into being” and portray the interviewer as “someone who cares enough to listen” (Shannon, 2011, p. 117). This indeed, emphasises that emotions and co-construction are intricately entwined. Keeping this in mind, I was, thus, aware of the need to develop trustworthy relationships with my teacher participants, encouraging them to share their
‘shifting emotions’ experienced in teaching about HIV and AIDS.
The strengths of co-construction are twofold: not only does it acknowledge the diverse knowledge and power of researchers and participants, but it also offers space to acknowledge voices of participants. Although giving participants a voice is certainly desired, at the same time, I believe, it presents challenges in terms of ownership and voice of such co-constructed
145
narratives. Such notions of ownership and voice are intricately entwined with power relations and positionality of the researcher (Blaufuss, 2007; Casey, 1995; Chase, 2005; Elbaz- Luwisch, 1997; Gilbert, 2002). Narrative strategies of researchers to interpret and represent voice(s), therefore, could be portrayed on a continuum: At one end, is the researcher’s authoritative voice or pure construction and the subject’s pure construction or researcher’s supportive voice at the other. Along the continuum or in-between is the researcher’s interactive voice(s) or the blended voices of researchers and subjects (Chase, 2005; Plummer, 2001). This means that narrative researchers should endeavour to strike a balance in representing their voice or presence and that of their participants in their texts. As a result, many reading such co-constructed narratives ask: “whose story is it anyway?” (Creswell, 2007; Gilbert, 2003; Gubrium & Holstein, 2009; Plummer, 2001; Tamboukou, 2010).
Such notions of positionality, authority, ownership, voice and power imbalances put the
‘political’ dimension of co-construction under scrutiny, and denote a ‘crisis of representation’
(Blaufuss, 2007; Creswell, 2007; Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). Whose voices are represented in such co-constructed narratives? What weight is given to researcher’s and participant’s voices? Should these voices be equal in co-constructed narratives? Who decides the weight of voices in co-constructed narratives? How are researchers and participants positioned in such representations? These are pertinent concerns related to the ‘crisis of representation’, to name just a few. These concerns suggest that, perhaps, narrative researchers use their power to actively select stories to create narratives and give more weight to some voices compared to others. Reflexivity and negotiation by narrative researchers are, therefore, crucial to address such power imbalances (Blaufuss, 2007; Gubrium & Holstein, 2009).
Creswell (2007, p. 43) expands on the ‘crisis of representation’ thus: “we (re)present our data, partly based on participant’s perspectives and partly based on our own interpretations, never clearly escaping our own personal stamp on a study”. Although Elliott (2005) maintains that narrative researchers allow participant’s voices, experiences and emotions to be represented precisely, she, nevertheless, cautions this may not always result in empowerment and emancipation or transform contemporary power discrepancies in society.
This places immense responsibility on the shoulders of narrative researchers: to accurately represent participant’s voices in co-constructed narratives, to acknowledge their own biases
146
when editing and applying theoretical frameworks to analyse such narratives and, fully acknowledge the social and cultural contexts within which such narratives are constructed.
Keeping in mind such concerns about ‘crisis of representation’, I, indeed, made every effort to let teacher participants ‘speak for themselves’, ensuring their voice, points of view and insights were represented accurately. Most importantly, I aimed to portray teachers’
narratives of their lives and work in their own words. Our multiple conversations and reflections resulted in collaborative engagement and ‘member checks’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Gilbert, 2003; Hole, 2007), in which we jointly selected and verified what to include and/or exclude in co-constructed narrative accounts. Such co-constructed narratives, in addition, reflected our distinct voices, points of view, subjectivities, cultural morals, values and emotionality. In keeping with the notion of collaborative co-construction, I create narrative spaces for teachers to speak for themselves, permeating their actual responses within their personal narratives. Echoing Denzin (2003), I maintain that “words matter”, and attempt to “stay close” to how teachers represent their daily life experiences. Nevertheless, besides concerns about whose story or voice is represented? - a related concern is: Who owns the data or information generated?
This means that “where more than one person is accountable for the piecing together of a story” (Georgakopoulou, 2006a, p. 251), it is imperative for them to not only acknowledge their subjectivities and positionality, but also to recognise that data or information generated in such co-constructed narratives, is collectively owned. It is precisely against this realisation that I allowed teacher participants in my study some degree of control over their narratives:
they were given opportunities to “shift along the continuum from source to analyst” (Gready, 2008, p. 147). As such, we collaboratively interpreted their life experiences, subjectivities and emotionality and co-authored and negotiated details as we co-constructed and re- constructed narratives. This means that although I acknowledge I was an active, positioned participant in the co-construction process, I nevertheless, afforded opportunities for teacher participants to select which stories and how these should be represented in narrative accounts.
Collaborative engagement in such co-construction processes draws attention to power relations, authority and issues of trust between researchers and participants. In other words,
147
such political dimensions are inextricably linked with relationships and ethical issues (Blaufuss, 2007; Elliott, 2005). Although ethical considerations of informed consent, confidentiality and voluntary participation during the data generation phase were briefly mentioned earlier, nevertheless, the discussion that follows elucidates ethical concerns and dilemmas further. This juncture, therefore, represents the ‘ethical turn’as I tread along my narrative, labyrinth journey.