Researching life stories: four approaches to methodology

 Book review

 

Goodley, D. Lawthom, R. Clough, P. And Moore, M. (2006) Researching Life Stories: Method, theory and analyses in a biographical age.London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer

 

The purpose of this essay is to present a comparative review of chapters from a book, which presents the different approaches adopted by four authors. This book brings together four different categories of participation in life story research and presents four different perspectives of methodology. In addition to that, some of the research participants are people with learning difficulties, therefore the issues presented are intrinsically related with my research topic, which involves Special Educational Needs (SEN), Inclusive Education and Narratives (life stories).

 

The paper is organised in sections according to the chosen chapters, and subdivided by author/approach. The first section examines four approaches to methodology and reflects on the similarities and contrasts between them. The second section examines the epistemological views and identifies accordance and discrepancy involving the four considerations. The conclusion discusses the relevance of these four studies to my own research.

1.1. Examining the approaches to methodology

1.1.1. Non-participatory ethnographic approach – Dan Goodley

Goodley illustrates a non-participatory ethnographic research through a story about a person with ‘learning difficulties’. He argues that “ethnography is an approach to research that involves immersion within and investigation of, a culture or social world.” (p.56), an assumption that can be seen in the methodology he used in this study, and his involvement with the participants. He also defends a conceptualization of “ethnographic research as making the strange familiar.” He then explains that “this involves getting to know people by being there, alongside them, during ordinary days, to try to capture their experiences at first hand” (p.56).

 

Goodley cites the general conceptualization of “ethnography as making sense of the other” (p.57), the unknown or those contexts and cultures which we know little, and he points out the failure of some ethnographic texts in interpreting the cultures in which they are immerse, and consider that “ethnographic research can be embraced as a methodology that aims to look again at the cultures we may feel we already know so well” (p.57), in other words, he suggests that ethnography is also look at familiar cultures in a different way, in a new and critical perspective.

 

In a further analysis the author distinguishes issues of ethnographic research involving people with learning disabilities, and starts with a postulation about the kind of involvement the researcher needs to take. Goodley indicates that

Perhaps the first issue to consider when we are looking at how ethnographers go about doing their research is to recognise that this approach digresses markedly from the classic view of the dispassionate, distanced, objective scientific observer. In many ways, ethnography is about immersing oneself within a culture of investigation, drawing upon a variety of methods and analyses in order to tap into that culture. (p.58)

1.1.2. Emancipatory interview – Rebecca Lawthom

Lawthom’s story is based on an interview with a woman who is identified by her real name, and whose participation determined the course of the narrative. Lawthom asserts that “in emancipatory research, the focus is not only on full participation but ownership of the narrative” (p. 60), therefore the participant is not only a character but a co-author of the story. Additionally, Lawthom points out the importance of “doing research ethically so the interviewee might usefully gain something from the production” (p.60).

 

According to Lawthom, what characterises the participation in this category of research is that “within an emancipatory framework, the researched may have a voice within all stages of the research process” (p. 60), which means that the researcher does not own the data collection alone.

1.1.3. Participatory ethnographic approach – Michele Moore

Moore’s relationship with the participant was complex and this complexity was reflected in the research itself. The author states that she “had written extensively about, and was familiar with, the difficulties of the ways in which real life intersects with methodological aspirations and practices” (p. 63). However, the participant interventions determined a variety of changes in the course of what was planned. Using a participatory ethnographic approach to methodology, the ownership of data was shared by the researcher and participant. Lawthom describes that:

 

From the outset I made considerable efforts in my engagement with David [the participant] to make sure that he decided the focus of our dialogue and to ensure his meaningfully participation in all matters relating to the way I built up his story, the sense I had made of it and the way it would be told. David established the discursive practices through which his story was revealed.  (p. 64)

1.1.4. Non-participatory fiction – Peter Clough

Clough’s story is a fiction based on a compilation of real stories, the construction of the narrative is a derivation of literal data; therefore it is not explicitly related to the evidence. However, Clough argues that “it doesn’t exactly set aside important notions of validity and reliability and so on, but it assumes that readers attend primarily to writing as it ‘speaks to’ their experience, and that analysis is part of a later moment of explanation” (p. 66). He defends the idea that in terms of fiction, the validation is a result of the reader interaction with the text, connecting the narrative with their experience and knowledge (p. 67). Another consideration made by Clough is about the role played by the subjectivity of the researcher and its influence in the shape of the research. He argues that

 

As researchers of social practices, we give shape, weight and identity to these meanings: we do not come innocent to a task or situation of events; rather, we wilfully situate those events not merely in the institutional meanings which our profession provides but also, and in the same moment, we constitute them as expressions of our selves. (p. 67)

1.2. Similarities and differences between those approaches

 

	Goodley	Lawthom	Moore	Clough
Ownership of data	researcher	researcher and participant	researcher with intervention of the participant	researcher
Authorship of the stories	researcher	researcher and participant	researcher with some level of participation	researcher
Influence of the researcher in the construction of the narratives	The writer’s engagement determines the writing process	The writer’s political orientation has influenced the process	The researcher determined the narrative without the researched due to his absence	The stories were shaped according to writer’s purpose
Involvement of the researcher with the participants	worked with the participants prior to the study	were friends	distantly related, never met before the study, but their  relation influenced the research	worked with the participants prior to the study
Anonymity /identity of the participants	known by the researcher	known by the researcher	known by the researcher	known by the researcher
Confidentiality	Identity unreleased	Identity released	Identity released	Identities unreleased
Authenticity of the characters	Real character with fictional name	Real character	Real character	Fictional characters

 

1.2.1 Contrasting two non-participatory approaches – Goodley and Clough

The major significant discrepancy between Goodley and Clough is in the nature of their narratives. While Goodley constructed a narrative based directly on the data collected, using fictional parts only in order to guarantee the confidentiality over the identity of the participants, Clough constructed a fictional narrative with fictional characters and events.

1.2.2 Contrasting two participatory approaches – Lawthom and Moore

The major difference between Lawthom’s  and Moores’s approaches was the level of engagement of the participant. While Lawthom worked strongly in partnership with her story-giver, as described by herself “the writer has the final authority regarding the story, the process is guided and shaped by Colleen (the participant)”, Moore experienced a disturbing involvement with the participant, which forced her to change direction on what she had planned, mainly concerning the contribution of the participant in the construction of the story.

1.2.3 Contrasting the participatory and non-participatory approaches

 

	Non-participatory	Participatory/Emancipatory
Ownership of data	researcher	Researchers had intended to share the ownership of data with participants, but one of them wasn’t successful.
Authorship of the stories	researcher	Researchers had planned to share the authorship with participant, but one of them wasn’t successful.
Influence of the researcher in the construction of the narratives	The writer’s engagement has determined the writing process	The writer’s political orientation/subjectivity has influenced the writing process
Involvement of the researcher with the participants	worked with the participants prior to the study	had some level of relationship prior to the study
Anonymity /identity of the participants	known by the researcher	known by the researcher
Confidentiality	Identity unreleased	Identity released
Authenticity of the characters	Some use of fictional facets in the construction of the characters	Real character

 

The most significant distinctions between the two modes of participation were those concerning ownership of data, authorship, confidentiality and the story construction. These issues were dealt with differently, according to the research purposes, the researcher intentionality and subjectivity, and the engagement of the participants.

 

The four approaches had demonstrated some similarities, such as the awareness of the researchers about their influence on the whole process. Additionally, all of them had preferred identified participants, instead of anonymous subjects and furthermore, preferred people related to the researcher.

1.2.4. Contrasting the fictional approach and the other ones

The fictional approach was the most distinct of the approaches because it involves a number of arguable procedures and analyses. The author explicitly states his awareness of those issues and addresses some of them. The points addressed by Clough are shown below:

 

It could be said that		But…
1. The writer is the sole author of the story		the reader is ‘co-writer’ if the achievement of the story depends on the reader’s ‘evidence’
2. The characters are fictitious		they are based on ‘real’ people whim the author has met
3. There are no explicit data for the story		evidence is provided by the reader
4. This is an ‘author-evacuated’ text		the author has a clear purpose

Figure 3: Clough’s table (p. 69)

2.1. Examining the epistemological views

2. 2.1. Poststructuralist approaches to life story research – Dan Goodley

Goodley claims that “an ethnographer’s theoretical position will noticeably influence the ways in which they choose their methods, deal with their material and later conceptualise their analyses” (p.98). Goodley’s narrative was influenced by Poststructuralism, a postmodern method, which reflects on empowering narratives. Grand narratives reproduce the dominant powers of discourses, in terms coined by institutions of society, such as ‘abnormal’, ‘learning difficulties’, ‘handicapped’, in order to provide their meaning. In this sense, “Poststructuralism analyses have shown that ‘universals’ or ‘truths’ actually marginalise certain groupings to the status of ‘other’” (pp.99, 100). Goodley’s story reflects his concern with this marginalisation; his construction of the narrative takes into account the participant’s discourse and the urge for giving voice to whose voices have been ignored.

2.2.2. Feminist standpoint approach to life story research – Rebecca Lawthom

Lawthom argues that “feminist standpoint epistemologies in research emphasise the perspectives of those whose lives are shaped and constrained (or marginalised) by the dominant social order” (p. 102). In this context, the life story research is a means to understand and renovate – possibly repair – the? social construction of the notion of gender. The author defends “stories as valuable data”, arguing they “are key to understanding women’s experiences” (p. 103) and her emancipatory approach notably reflects this assumption.

 

Although the research is based in a conception of feminism as a collective identity, the study concentrated on a particular woman and her experiences. However, the story extrapolates its  shape, because the analyses that emerged involve equally an individual experience and a social and historic context. (p. 104)

2.2.3. A social model of disability approach to life story research – Michele Moore

Moore recognises the influence of the social representation of disability in her research and also the influences of emancipatory research practice in the process of story construction. Her story writing is guided by the belief that emancipatory research practices seek to engage people with disabilities to understand their view of disability and of themselves.

 

The entire condition in which Moore found the participant had an impact over her research project. Moreover, the participant’s perception of his condition and his lack of expectations of the future put him in a defensive and isolated position, which constrained the researcher’s purposes and aims. Moore claims that

 

While one of the chief purposes of research is to support the generation of theory, it is also true to say that in life story research, as soon as you have identified the life you are interested in, your project is bound up with your theoretical predispositions, and is subordinated to your personal theoretical inclinations. (p. 105)

 

The author admits that when researchers focus on a participant they are interested in, whose life will be scrutinised by the research, they experience a dilemma in terms of adoption of theoretical neutrality (p. 106). Moore maintains that “it is not possible or productive to separate theoretical persuasion from the narrative. The narrative should be underpinned unequivocally by the aim of empowerment.” (p. 106). She clearly portrays her beliefs and preferences when she asserts that

 

The life story research that I do explicitly seeks to optimise the relationship between life stories, an agenda for empowerment and inclusion and the everyday contexts where exclusions of people with impairments are played out. (p. 106)

 

Moore’s defence of the progress of inclusion through life story research lies in her belief that a social theory of disability is intrinsically attached to the methodology applied in life story research (p. 107).

2.2.4. Literary theory approach to life story research – Peter Clough

Although literary theory is chiefly concerned with the elements that constitute the discourse, there is an awareness of the further dimensions of language. The meanings extrapolate the narrative, as well as the events which are described, and the people who tell or listen to them. Clough argues  that “narrative is about ‘selection’ for ‘telling’ and the selection and presentation of these events must connect, have contiguity, with the subject matter so that their occupation of space is significant” (p. 108).

 

Language is an instrument to make sense of lives, to reveal subjectivities, to transform the strange in familiar. In this sense, Clough suggests that “the portrayal of lives through life story research could be said to have three elements: the telling of events, the creation of text, and the interpretation of those events” (p.108). In other words, the real events need to be transformed in a fictional text, which is created, rather than simply constructed. Clough claims that

The literary approach to life story research can stand apart. It can stand on its own bed of complexity of ethics and morals. Values, when we consider fictional narrative in social research, are unprotected; they are at the mercy of the author. So, this approach is essentially about language, using language to create events through texts which are then open to the multiple interpretations of their readers. (p. 110)

2.2. Contrasting the epistemological views

The epistemological views in the four chapters are essentially analogous or at least convergent. Although the means to reach the purposes are substantially different to specific issues, the major agreement is the advocacy of a change in the social theory of disability and differentiation (gender, race, class, and so on). Life story research is seen as a potential means of empowerment. Goodley emphasizes that

 

Via the narratives collected during ethnography, the resultant story aims to destabilise common-sense understandings of disability and impairment; to challenge ‘truths’ that occupy and dominate the lives of some people with learning difficulties; to blur the words of writer and character and to illuminate how ‘abnormalities’ such as learning difficulties exist only in relation to opposite conceptions of ‘normality’. (p. 102)

 

Later he praises the diversity across methodologies for being “an important feature of accessing and telling stories which may, otherwise, remains untold” (p. 103).

 

 

The main purpose of this essay is to present a comparative review of articles written by different authors, suggesting different approaches to methodology in research, and furthermore to analyse their relevance to my area of research. As a matter of fact my research required me to especially evaluate in-depth the use of narratives in research, particularly the use of fictional stories. Equally important for me was to analyse specifically the research in the field of disability, and more widely in inclusion. Because of this I have chosen to review Researching Life stories for this task in-depth, due to its coverage of these issues, in the hope that the diverse views and methodologies explained by the authors would provide a substantial source of analysis for my study, which actually happened. The authors point out relevant issues, which affected my research project on the basis of the following:

 

• Stories are valuable data;
• Ethnographic research can be considered as a methodology that aims to take a critical look at things that we believe we already understand;
• Being an ethnographic researcher may represent a disruption with classic view of the researcher as an objective (dispassionate) scientific observer;
• Life story research can be a distinctive means of empowerment to people labelled with ‘learning difficulties’.

 

Inclusion in a world used to segregation is not only an individual responsibility but also a collective challenge, and a story to be told continuously. Thus, life story research in the field of disability challenges us to be responsible participants in the promotion of a wider inclusive society.