CHAPTER 6: THE RESEARCH STORY
6.1. Understanding narrative research
6.1.3. The position of the researcher in narrative research
Walsh sees four possible positions for the researcher. Firstly, as a complete participant the researcher is thoroughly involved as a participant in the research, generating ‘complete’ knowledge but with the ethical compromise of pretending to be something s/he is not. Secondly, as a complete observer there is reduced reactivity but the possibility of alienation occurs. Thirdly, the position of participant observer is an honest approach but has the danger of ‘going native’ and losing perspective on what is being studied. Finally, the observer as participant is safer but might result in superficial understanding (1999, 222). His suggested best
approach is that of 'marginal native', where the researcher is “poised between a strangeness which avoids over-rapport and a familiarity which grasps the perspectives of people in the situation” (1999, 226). “This position creates considerable strain on the researcher as it engenders insecurity, produced by living in two worlds simultaneously, that of participation and that of research”
(1999, 227). This difficult position is the one I have most tried to adopt; that of being well aware of myself as outsider, as stranger, and yet at the same time being involved in the lives of those I am researching, thus allowing me to more deeply understand their perspectives. Further, those being researched have become participant researchers, giving direction to and becoming involved in the research project.
In terms of the position of the researcher, rather than seeing the relationship between researcher and narrator as objective, Ochberg argues that the researcher influences the way the narrator tells their story as well as what the narrator says. According to him, the narrator is forming a relationship with the interviewer, with those interviewed trying to make themselves likeable or even keeping the interviewer at bay. “To see what a life story means, we have to see what effect the speaker is trying to create” (2000, 119). Narrators, Ochberg argues, may not expect or even want their audiences to understand them as they understand themselves.
“Our sense of ourselves depends on our experience of how others understand us. However, I do not think that our sense of ourselves necessarily depends on others seeing us the same way that we see
ourselves. In fact, just the opposite may be the case. Our sense of who we are may depend on feeling that others see us differently than we see ourselves. We may, for example, cherish the idea that we are keeping a secret or that we are too complicated for any but the most attentive audience to comprehend” (2000, 120).
This viewpoint on the position of the researcher and the impact of the researcher on the narrator leads to a more complex understanding of the kind of data that is allowed to emerge. Not only is a narrative research approach interested in the content of the life story but the very way it is related and the relationship that
develops between the researcher and narrator, and in this case, also between the four Rwandans as they engaged with each others stories. For example, with the life histories as well as the formal and informal interviews, there was sometimes the sense that the speaker was trying to second guess the direction I was taking, trying to answer not what I asked specifically, but what I might need them to say to satisfy my research and prevent me from probing any further. I often had the sense that I was being directed away from certain topics that seemed unsafe and towards others that almost had a rote answer. For example, I had a strong sense that certain interviewees wanted me to have a clear impression that they
supported the government and that I would have no doubt at all of this. There were also times when interviewees would emphasise how relaxed and open they were to speak to me, but at the same time it seemed as if there were things they were uncomfortable to discuss.
Ochberg says we all know of people who want to seem ambivalent about being understood, maybe because they are distrustful; they may want to feel connected to others but fear it may be dangerous.
“For anyone who doubts the perfect goodwill of their audience, telling a transparently open life story may seem foolish: If, instead, the goal is to create relationships that are only partially open, one must tell stories that are semi-opaque. Such stories must engage an audience yet keep that audience at a distance. Telling a story in this manner – and thereby creating a contested or guarded relationship with one’s listener – in turn confirms a particular sense of self” (2000, 120).
Such vagueness and ambivalence, which included contradictions in accounts and changes of subject, were common within the context of this research project.
Ochberg suggests that some people would want this ambiguity to be removed, for example, by creating a more trustful relationship. But he argues against this, saying,
“We do not become more ourselves in the absence of these (protectively constructed) dangers; instead – were such a thing possible – we would no
longer be ourselves. Therefore, not only is it inevitable that our informants struggle against us, this struggle may be essential to their self creation … To see how narrators struggle with their audiences – pushing them away and pulling them closer, inviting understanding and disparaging it – is to see more of the complexity in both life stories and lives” (2000, 122).
In addition to this, who the narrator is also has an impact on the researcher and the way the life story sharing or interviews unfold. I was aware of asking either more or less direct questions depending on the openness or comfortableness of the narrator. With some of those interviewed, it was easier to be candid and open whereas with others it felt necessary to be sensitive and guarded about the topics we engaged in. Rather than this being a hindrance to objectivity, it rather added to the richness of the data as my own responses to the interview situation gave clues to some of the underlying issues at stake. For example, if it felt that the conversation was becoming more guarded and less direct I took note of this to consider whether it might indicate uncertainty of what could or could not be discussed within the confines of government policy and law.
As mentioned before, engaging with such an understanding of the relationship between the narrator and the researcher allows for both more complex data and the opportunity for deeper analysis.