Major Issues in Life History Research

CHAPTER FOUR: MAPPING THE METHODOLOGICAL ROUTE- PROCESS, PARADIGM AND PROCEDURE

4.5 Major Issues in Life History Research

ways to consider the career of teaching, the reasons for becoming teachers and the factors associated with shaping teachers' identities. In this study I attempt to recognize the struggle over identity (who am I?),as inseparable from the struggle over the meanings of identities and subject positions that may be occupied by teachers in teaching discourses and practices (how do I make meaning of who I am?). Itis these complex identities I seek to understand, and the multiple and conflicting meanings teachers they create in their daily lives. Employing the life history approach enables me to understand teachers' lives as complex and identities as fluid and multiple.

rigour. On the other hand, the researcher sees it necessary to develop a reciprocal relationship that affords the opportunity for deeper engagement (Lawrence - Lightfoot &

Hoffman-Davis, 1997).Researchers are somewhere on this continuum.

In fostering a reciprocal relationship in life history research, it is also important to consider how researchers and participants are positioned. Clandinin & Connelly (1994:419) point out 'these intensive relationships require serious consideration of who we are as researchers in the stories of participants, for when we became characters in their stories, we change their stories'. Measor& Sikes( 1992) suggest that the researchers' position in relation to the research stories to be acknowledged, examined and explicated.

Who is the participant I want to research? How do I construct Myself? What are the expectations and boundaries of the research relationship?

Researchers, (Harnmersely, 1979; Cole, 1989; Cole & Knowles, 1995) aptly talk about the importance of building rapport with participants in order to engage in the intrusive work of interviewing. Siedman (1991) maintains that the level of rapport needs to be carefully controlled so that the researcher and participants do not become too familiar,so that interviews do not become conversations and so that meaning does not become distorted.

Although there is intimacy in the relationship there is also a need for boundaries between the researcher and the participant and a need to protect the vulnerability of the participant. In writing about the role of intimacy in research relationships, Busier (1997), asserts that the more blurred the boundaries between the personal and professional became, the closer he/she was able to get to 'knowledge producing'. Life history work can be deeply emotional, but it is not therapy. These are difficult lines to draw, but the researcher must keep in mind the question and guide the research. In the process of navigating intimacy the researcher must learn how to discern his/her own motivations and to see the difference between legitimate inquiry and voyeurism. As Oakley (1981) remarks, the teller is not the only person telling the tale. The listener also shapes the

story. Questions, too, determine the direction and emphasis of the narrative. Even interviewer silence can have its meanings.

During the research process I adopted the role of an empathetic listener. The research relationship was professional with the participants clearly committed to answering the questions to the best of their abilities and me trying to steer the discussion in a way that will provide me with data to answer my research questions. The next concern was about the reliability of memory in life history research.

4.5.2 Memory in Life History Research

In life history research, the participant is engaged with the process of recounting his experiences over time. This process relies on memory and the issue must therefore be considered. Thus, there are questions about how well memory serves us: the reliability of memory, memory being distorted by other events or memory being mediated by subsequent events and happenings.How will these issues impact on the research interest?

Traditional historians who seek factual truths have challenged the use of memory as evidence. The main criticism was that memory was unreliable as a historical source because it was distorted by physical deterioration and nostalgia in old age, by the personal bias of both interviewer and interviewee and by the influence of collective and retrospective versions of the past. In addition, Reddy (2000) indicates that memory depends not only on individual comprehension, but also upon interest - one chooses to remember from a long time ago and indicated by our present state there can be a tendency to glamorise these experiences.

However, the purpose of life history research is different from historical research. It is not intended to generate factual truth, but to generate personal truths. Therefore memory must be understood differently.

Life history research is an active process of recollecting, rediscovering and creating.

Memories may be said to be working at many different, interconnected levels (Plummer,

2001). Firstly, at the personal psychological level one considers how well and what a person can remember given his individual constraints such as time of day or diseases affecting memory. Secondly,memory in narrative research has been understood as more of a socially shared experience than an inner psychological phenomenon. Memories are our habitual stories about what we have come to believe is true,and in this regard, can be considered as a narrative memory. Bruner (1994) explains that what we remember of the past is what is necessary to keep a story well informed.A third level of narrative memory is a collective memory where the emphasis is on the social framework of memory. Life stories are narrated within a broader cultural frame. Story-tellers rely on the collective memories of events passed on through generations and include in their stories aspects of cultural heritages. They are able to relate events that they have not directly experienced but which have become part of their 'vicarious' experience through stories told by others, for example, atrocities during war times or living in apartheid times. Memories of living conditions, experiences of families and critical events may become part of an individual's experience as stories are passed down through generations. Memory can be constructed as an active, personal/social process of linking the past to present, which has relevance for the construction of a particular story.

Memories serve to construct identities. In creating ourselves we always rely on our memories (Bruner, 1994). Without such memory how would we know who we are?Itis a process that extends from childhood to adulthood and is under constant revision.

In the context of research one must then ask the difficult question about whether it is plausible to rely on individual memory as a basis for theorising. If one is interested in personal experience, then it is the interpretations of those memories that must serve as evidence. Itmay be irrelevant whether or not a participant can remember the exact date and time of a life event, but it is important that he can place it within a meaningful temporal context. In the interview, the researcher may want to check for internal consistency by revisiting aspects of the experience and comparing with other sources, e.g., artifacts, if necessary and possible. According to Cole & Knowles (2001 :86) artifacts are primarily representations of the life. These are usually physical objects or

documentations of a life as lived in the present. Examples include:photographs,journals, diaries or logbooks.

The challenge for the narrative researcher lies in appraising the particular kinds of questions he asks, and the ways in which he asks these 'watershed' questions. These questions unlock a stream of memories that may be considered extraneous to the researcher's objective but also create the possibility of illuminating unanticipated rich data (Barone, 2001). However, the unlocking of such memories is also built on a solid bridge of interpersonal trust, respect and dignity (Antoinette, 2000). As a counterpoint, Dhunpath (2002) suggests that we should also ask what about silences- about what is not said or remembered.Itis unlikely that we will know with any degree of certainty whether silence on particular issues are a conscious or unconscious act and the extent of self- censorship or strategic selection an individual is likely to make. The dilemma is a difficult one for the life history researcher and perhaps it can only be approached with an attitude of sensitive caution to what the participant wants or chooses to make public.

What is said, what is not said,what can or can not be remembered,are part of the story.It is a difficult path the researcher must negotiate. Itis here that the ethics and politics of the research process become paramount.

4.5.3 Sampling and Representativity

One major issue of the method of narrative research is that they usually deal with small samples (Cortazzi, 1993:19). This is because narrative inquiry involves protracted observation or extended interviewing with each participant to explore the participant's narrative to what is believed to be the necessary depth. An issue for the life history research is the decision of whom to research about. Given the research focus, what kind of consideration needs to be given to participants' characteristics? To what extent is it important to take into account socio-economic, socio-political, or demographic factors?

How many participants are enough or optimum or manageable? Hence life history research is exploratory and intensive. There is little chance of a large, representative sample. Similarly, Cole& Knowles (2001 :67) suggest that in life history research we are

opting for depth over breadth and the aim in participant selection is not population representativeness. Therefore the sampling is strategic rather than random.

Itis good to keep this in mind when making commitments to one and to others about who and how many participants to involve. It is much more important to work thoroughly, meaningfully and authentically with one participant than to end up with very partial and sketchy understandings based on work with several or many.

I decided to write the life histories of six history educators. The number six was a statistical choice. I explain this fully in section 4.6.2.8.The participants in the sample had to reflect the population demographics. The South African population is made up of Africans,Coloureds,Whites and Indians. In the sample I interviewed three Africans, one Indian, one White and one Coloured. In choosing the participants in the study I initially chose educators whom I knew and could access easily, in the teaching of the field of history. I knew that the life history method involved an empathetic, intimate stance. I chose people that I knew because I felt that this would allow for a more open interview.

Sample selection is discussed further in this chapter (see section 4.6.2).

4.5.4 The Paradox of Trust

in

Life History Research

The issue of trust in the work that involves experience is a complex one. Critics of life history say that authors of personal accounts can say what they want to say, hold back what they do not want to say and slant things to suit them. Can narratives be trusted?

Several prominent researchers have suggested caution in trusting stories for reasons that have not occurred to more traditional educational research methodologists (Barone 1995:1). The issue of truth in work that involves experience is a complex one. Grumet (1998), for example, describes narratives as 'mask through which we can be seen' and asks about trustworthiness when 'every telling is a potential prevarication'. Nespor &

Barylske (1991) contended that a portrait of oneself with the 'specific situation within fields of power, history and culture' .For other narratives, a life story unaccompanied by textual analysis exhibits a deficiency. If this argument goes, narratives, may recreate life

experiences, but they cannot critically examine the political, cultural and ideological systems engendering experience. Thus,the narrative may caution a record of constrained consciousness (Goodson, 1992). For Goodson,life stories are less than 'critical' because they cannot be trusted to challenge stereotypical,taken-for-granted ideas and beliefs or to shed light on the cultural forces conspiring to constrain the awareness of the 'self being described.

Reddy (2000) describes four types of truth that were relevant to the work of The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (1998): factual or forensic truth; personal or narrative truth; dialogue or social truth; and healing and restorative truth. Personal or narrative truth gives meaning to the multi-layered experiences of a story. This truth is told in the form of a story rather than through argument and it providesunique insights into the past.

Itcaptures peoples' experiences, perceptions and stories.

Reddy (2000) elaborates by quoting Passerini (in Personal Narratives Group, 1989:261) in that all autobiographical memory is true.Itis up to the interpreter to discover in which sense, where and for which purpose. To understand what is communicated in a personal narrative we have to consider the conditions that create these narratives, the forms that guide them, and the relationships that produce them. The life history researcher should determine the biases, silences and exaggerations and the analysis must include an explanation of these biases,silences and exaggeration.

In this study I accepted the narratives told by the participants. I was not looking for forensic truth but wanted personal truth. It was my responsibility as the researcher to interpret the experience.