CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS OF LIFE HISTORY DATA
SECTION 1: PROCESSES AND ISSUES OF REPORTING
5.1 Introduction
5.1.2 First Level Analysis
The process of moving from a transcript to a narrative involves making a number of decisions. There were two decisions I took at this point as I considered the formal analysis. The first pertains to the choice to undertake a representational analysis and second to use story representation device. Freeman (1996) differentiates between representational and presentational analysis when using language as data.
Representational analysis refers to 'what was said', whereas the presentational analysis refers to 'how it was said'. I chose the representational analysis because the study has an interest in what was said about identity formations and experiences.
Secondly, I decided that an analysis of narrative would be preferable because I was analyzing life stories and not reports or responses to a questionnaire. Using Bruner's (1986) categorization of the paradigmatic and narrative cognition, Polkinghome (1995) has classified two types of narrative inquiry. He calls the types of analysis that employs paradigmatic reasoning (analysis ofnarratives) and the type that uses narrative reasoning (narratives analysis). In 'analysis of narratives' researchers collect stories as data and analyse them with paradigmatic processes, which result in producing themes that hold across the stories. In 'narratives analysis' researchers collect descriptions of events and happenings and configure them by means of a plot into a story.
The outcome of the data analysis is a narrative or story. In this study I have chosen story as a representation device because of its utility in holding complex and interrelated aspects of the data produced. One of the significant issues considered was in whose voice the story was to be written. The choices included first person, or third-person narrator, with the researcher as the writer and the participant the storyteller. In all cases, I explored two voices for the purpose of representation and realized that they both have merits and limitations. During the pilot phase, I chose to write the story in the role of'interpreter ' . I resorted to a third person narrative which allowed me the opportunity to critically comment as omniscient narrator on the plot of the story as it unfolded in the lives of the different individuals.
I then experimented with writing the story in the first-person narrative to evoke a sense of immediacy of the teller. I also chose in doing so to reflect as closely as possible the unique dialectical variation of language usage of the particular participants. Therefore, I chose to remain close to the direct transcript records in the telling of the story. The story seemed more genuine because the participant's words could be represented making the research story more life-like. With this choice, however, the analytic voice of the researcher can be muted. However, I felt that the research story should remain close to the voice of the participant, especially because I had an interest in issues of self-identity formation in this study. Italso seemed easier to read the story about identity formations when narrated from the various I - positions,that is,in the first person.
I chose to retain the story supplemented with verbatim transcriptions in the text because I felt that the story as a representation device was appropriate and useful in the context of this study. Extracts of the verbatim text support the second level analysis by providing a direct account of the participant's voices to enhance the credibility of the analysis and adds texture to the process as well.
The choice of narrative analysis and story as a representation device requires the researcher to address many issues about the purpose of the story, textual representation and language, truth-value, the intended audience, voice, style and artistic devices in constructing the story (Reddy,2000).In the ensuing discussion I explain how these issues unfolded.
In this study the researcher wanted to know through the research story, how history teachers' constructed and negotiated their identities in the context of the changing curriculum policies.
Therefore, the research story is constructed with the purpose to answer the critical questions. Kathrad (2003) describes this as analytic-descriptive in nature because it addresses critical questions whilst providing the descriptive details of each participant in context. The research stories are structured chronologically to explain a particular
endpoint in each narrative. The research story in this instance can be described as having a life history orientation in that the social, personal and temporal lenses have been used in the construction.
An immediate concern in writing a research story is the question of truth-value when shifting from the interview data to the research story. I am interested in the personal truths of participants. However, these truths about the individual's experience are manufactured within the context of the dialogic interview. Some narrative researchers see their roles as similar to artists who reconstruct a situation to convey something about it (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 1997). Other researchers contest the issues or refer to truth-value by using terms such as believability (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 1997), credibility (Polkinghorne, 1995), or fidelity (Blumfield-Jones, 1995). In what remains a debatable issue I considered the plausibility of the plot and the issue of coherence in the story as two ways in which to reflect on truth-value. The plot is constructed after the researcher has been immersed in the data and it is the explanatory potential (Cole & Knowles, 2001) of the plot I considered to be a means of gauging truth-value. I was guided strongly by the fidelity of the plot with regard to what the experience was like for the teller of the tale, that is, as experience in the context of a particular life, showing faithfulness to the teller.
A further dimension of fidelity comes through the researcher constructing a larger network of personal, social and historical relationships. The researcher has the responsibility of weaving the personal story into a more complex set of social issues. Itis here that issues of truth and fidelity become more complex because the researcher has the unenviable task of locating a personal narrative within a social, political and educational context and while doing so, runs the risk of losing the original teller's perspective. The task of bringing together both the individual story and social context is the challenge of writing an interpretive story (Goodson, 1995). In all research stories there was a systematic effort to locate participants within the contexts. I did this by gaining insights into the participants' nature of contexts during the interviews and knotted them together as a plausible plot. I highlighted the time period in which the story unfolded, the place/s
in which participant's spent much of their time and the significant socio-political events, social discourses, value systems,and participant's interpretation of how these influenced and impacted on them at a personal level. The narratives were not simply a matter of compiling happenings or events: they also had to be drawn together into a systemic whole. As a researcher, I faced the complex task of constructing a 'story' of people's lives, 'of complex human experiences unfolding through time, as it stands out at any present moment through recollection and imagination' (Heidegger, 1962 quoted III
Polkinghome, 1995). These storied narratives are not objective representations or mirrored reflections of the teachers' lives as they actually occurred; they are rather a series of constructions that go beyond just representing the narratives.
I was aware as researcher that I had to make certain inclusions and exclusions in generating the story from the data, decisions that were shaped by the research question that this study sought to explore. How are history teachers constructing their identities within the context of curriculum change? Therefore as much as the relationship between the researcher and researched is a dynamic one, it was very difficult sustaining and maintaining that dynamism as the researcher. By virtue of our roles as researchers, and our access to a collection of information rather than to a single personal story, our interpretations are differently informed. There is considerable debate over whether and how much researchers need to interpret or translate participants' life texts or, whether and how much researchers need to translate or explain their own renditions. As life history researchers, it is our position to understand and make explicit as best we can the complex relationships between individuals and the contexts within which they live, work, and develop. I did have the final authority without altering the truth to describe and re- inscribe the stories in the way that I did in terms of the research focus and my responsibility to offer an explanation for the study I set out to research.
Although the researcher is the writer/author and the participant is the storyteller, the data was jointly constructed between two unique individuals. This is how I came to the decision that the participant should also contribute to establishing the credibility of the research story. In this study the participants were invited to review the research story and
to influence it so that it was faithful to the meanings generated in the interview process. I provided them with information about how the research story was constructed and its purpose and asked for their comments regarding analysis. The guidelines presented to participants appear as Appendix D. Having written the research stories and presented them for review,I became anxious about their response. I was concerned about whether I had understood and represented their experiences in a faithful and sensible way. I met with each of the teachers, thereafter in their homes and workplaces. When we did meet my questions to them was simple: What do you think about the story I have finally written? What aspects of the narrative do you disagree with? What do you like about the story?
Their responses were varied and the issues raised in the story review process were very interesting and contentions. The following issues emerged from the review process:
• Editorial and other corrections were brought to my attention, for instance,mispelt names and incorrect dates, or mixing events between high school and professional training as a teacher
• One participant requested that I remove from the story certain details about her family members. But she also offered me additional;information on other aspects of her life, which I found very helpful and which assisted me in writing up the story
• The review process afforded the opportunity to extend the interview process to generate a more sharpened analytical interview, which produced additional data.
Hence, I was able to revisit key issues/concerns and clarify aspects that needed further discussion. It also provided an opportunity for the participants to
"sharpen" the story and contribute to analysis
On receiving feedback from participants, I rewrote the stories using a significant proportion of actual spoken word of the participants. The interpretative position was
maintained and the research story served as a first level analysis. I requested participants to comment on the revised version of the stories with the intention to enhance their 'truth value' .Few changes were suggested and these further revised versions are presented in Section 2 of this chapter as research stories.
All the comments and discussion revealed to me that the writing process is neither an innocent nor a romantic one. It was an occasion for me to reflect on the power of the written word and how dangerous constructing research stories can be.