It may seem strange to link the use of narrative methodology as data production strategy in social sciences to that of other fields like medicine (Charon, 2000) and social movement (Kane, 2001). However, narrative methodologies were used extensively and effectively in these fields and they provide very clear examples of the use of narrative methodologies as data production strategies which can be adapted to the educational field. For example, Luttrell’s (2003) work in the medical field demonstrates how narrative methodology can be used to identify emotions, cultural patterns and their “continuities of meanings, social divisions / cultural conflicts and corresponding inner personal conflicts that individuals seek to resolve”. Kane’s (2001) work in the social movement field supports Lutrell’s assertions and further explains that the use of narrative methodology is beneficial in that it “may provide a deeper understanding of the processes of meaning, identity, and ideological construction” (Luttrell, 2003, pp. 265-266). Applying these concepts, I justify the use of narrative methodologies as demonstrated in other academic fields, in my study as a data production strategy.
2.6.1. Narrative and Telling: Co-construction of Narratives
Henry (2003, pp. 231-240) asserts that while “participant accounts, like researcher accounts, are also contextually and historically specific, mediated versions of experience … final texts are always mediated accounts, with the researcher’s own interpretation woven into the words”. I recognise this importance of both participants and researchers mediated experiences but I focus more on the notion of how these experiences lead to a co-construction of narratives. To explain why this is important, I restate one of Lather’s (2001) theoretical constructs namely that “discourse is dialogic”. This supports the notion that narratives are co-constructed and Williams (2001, p. 191) strengthens this by claiming that “narratives are necessarily co-authored”. Bell has the final say in this by claiming that,
88
“narratives are not just the stories of tellers… They are jointly produced by tellers and listeners who are ‘social actors’ whose ‘social and cultural matrices’ are marked by gender, age, race, class and professional status”
(Bell, 1999, p. 351).
I take Bell’s cue to declare my “listener” status as both principal and researcher and note its implication in the co-construction of the narratives. I recognise that I am integrating scholarly tools with my personal experiences and in this way diminishing the primacy of objectivity (Ladson-Billings, 1994). My personal experiences come from the process of “reflexivity”, through which one comes to know the self within the research process itself (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003, p.
283).
Does my positioning as a principal make me an “insider” researcher? Being a principal does not automatically confer on me an “insider” status when researching other principals. It may be argued that this may even be a case of
“outsider” especially in the present environment of competitiveness that seems to characterise schools. Therefore, I agree with the classification of “insider researcher” only to the extent to which “insider” points to “privileged knowledge” and to the advantages that this brings. This is similar to the experience of Fink (Fink, 2000) who makes a compelling argument based on the value of the school principal as an insider researcher in schools. He contends that:
“educators with an extensive management background can, therefore, contribute insights into the complex interconnections and interrelationships among the various levels of schools and systems that others may not see or understand” (Fink, 2000, p. 165).
Harper (2000) goes further by linking insider researchers to having the benefits of cultural awareness as follows:
“Things taken for granted by a cultural insider (which rules are followed, which norms guide behavior that is not regulated by rules, and what areas
89
of social life lie primarily outside the perusal or rules) are not obvious to cultural outsiders” (Harper, 2000, p. 721).
In the co-construction, the participant does the “telling”. This telling is dependent on the data production strategy which includes data collection instruments. To produce the data in the “telling”, interviews have to be resonant with the narrative methodology chosen for this study. Lincoln and Guba (1985) provide good reasons why semi-structured interviews may be best suited for this study.
Some of these reasons are that:
• interviews should be opportunities for principals to construct and deconstruct their own narratives by responding to open-ended questions or groups of questions that provide the stimulus for the telling;
• the same /similar questions in the interviews may be asked more than once;
• interviews must be set up to minimise the “voice” of the researcher while acknowledging that the principal’s narrative is co-constructed with the researcher (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Another reason for using semi-structured interviews is that the temporal ordering is not necessarily privileged either by the researcher or by the principal. This implies that principals must be allowed to dictate questions and choose to answer questions in order of their preference. Bulow and Hyden’s (2003, p. 72) warn against the researcher tending to “impose research-based temporal order” as there is a risk that this will dominate at the expense of other temporal orders.
2.6.2. Narrative and Discourse: From Interviews to Text
Interviews are typically recorded and transcribed. Interviews capture words.
These words represent the raw data as texts. Discourse refers to the relationship between the text produced and its context. I take the view that analysis begins at this stage and I defer this discussion to the data analysis section. To conclude this section, I present an overview (in Figure 2) of the use of narrative methodology as a data production strategy in this study.
90
Figure 2. Narrative Methodology as Data Production Strategy
From Narratives to Data Analysis
Data Analysis Strategy Mediated versions
of own experience, own
interpretations.
Lives-as-told
Mediated with own experience, guided by critical
question, theoretical framing, role as insider researcher
INFORMS
INFORMS
Theorising Narrative Methodology: Overview Narrative methodology as DATA PRODUCTION strategy
Telling
Participant:
Researcher (Questioner and listener) Participant:
Principal (Teller)
Dialogic;
Co-constructed
Data elicitation strategy Semi-structured interviews Story
Abstract series of events
Discourse
Relationship between text produced and its
context.
(From text to narrative)
Text NARRATIVE
Narrative Methodology as
DATA ANALYSIS strategy follows
next.
91