What are you learning about narrative inquiry/ critical narrative inquiry? How does this push your own researcher identity? What are the similarities and differences in the articles you read?
Narrative inquiry/critical narrative inquiry is a natural and respectful way to learn and gain knowledge about critical issues. It invites the participants into the conversation and allows them to transform their thinking and ideas through narrative and discourse. In my role, I have the opportunity to support individuals and groups of individuals to consider their practice as it relates to the intuitional discourse. While I have confidence that our work has lead to positive outcomes, I have learned in these articles that teaching people to question institutional discourse is an effective way to support their transformation. I have always believed that the teachers I work with should work together and collectively make decisions and for that I am affirmed. My question is how as a researcher do you infuse education of concepts within these groups? Or you do not because as a researcher, your role is different – one that elicits the questions for the participants to answer? In this case the question may be do you need more information on this topic? Where might you find it? For me, pushing my own researcher identify includes considering what your function and purposes are within the experience. Honestly, I still feel that I am on the fence as to if this is something that I can do well or to my own satisfaction. Similarities between the articles point to the use of questioning and reflection as primary ways of conducting this research. All three authors, Akin (2002), Clandinin (2006) and Souto-Manning (2012), offer that identifying problems and reflecting on them allow the participants to conceptualize the problem and in turn be empowered to conceptualize them; thus, transforming their thoughts, actions and choices. As for differences in the three articles, Akin (2002) used herself as the subject of her inquiry. She also used a strictly written narrative and reflective process to understand her teaching practices and transform her teaching practices. Clandinin (2006) described a narrative style that used stories as a way to understand the social context. She discusses that stories are living stories and that to be accurate the researcher engages and interacts with the participants. Clandinin describes the process as “there is fluidity and recursiveness as inquirers compose research texts, negotiate them with participants and compose further field texts and recompose research texts” (p.48). Souto-manning (2012) shares with the reader critical narrative analysis, which supports individuals to reflect on, question and reposition themselves with the institutional discourses that directly impact and influence their daily lives.
In pushing yourself as a narrative inquiry researcher, I am not sure if you need to know more about the topic. In narrative inquiry, the process seems to be more naturally occurring. Perhaps, with the critical perspective , more knowledge might be necessary because of the story that you want to tell. It can vary from social, political and or economic stance or vantage point.
Narrative Inquiry has roots in humanities but has now extended into other areas of sciences. There is a Deweyian view of experience central to Narrative Inquiry (NI) while Critical Narrative Analysis (CAN) has a lens that challenges “commonly accepted social structures and reframes interactions as places for norms to be changed” (Friere, 1970) . NI has a constructivist strand while CNA has a critical perspective. There are three dimensions to this research: interaction, continuity, and situation. Clandinin and Connelly (2006) work from the Deweyian view to conceptualize NI. CNA works within these dimensions but with a critical eye and metacognitve awareness. NI is described further using the context of curriculum making. In order to attend to social, cultural, and institutional contexts, the professional landscape is examined. The embedded experiences surface with dialogue and articulation. The discourse draws attention to the lives that are amidst negotiation of curricula. Clandinin (2006) uses “bumping” to describe the tension. The social significance of NI includes negotiated answers to “so what “and “who cares” and I believe, CNA adds a “now what”. NI and CNA enrich dialogue among research, practice, and policy and therefore have relevance for my research interests. I hope to push research from this vantage point. According to Clandinin,, “King (2004) chides us think about ethics in responsive and responsible ways” (2006). If you want questions answered about politics then tell that story. I thought about robustness and the manner of which King suggests addressing the study. Ethics can be seen as negotiation, respect, and mutual openness to multiple voices. I thought about the critical perspective and the need to look and examine interwoven relations and the themes that emerge. As far as examining responsiveness, attention to engaged participants and shifts within negotiations is crucial. I feel assured that robustness/rigour once again is affirmed in qualitative research. Akin (2002) compares NI to maps in that they make life more navigable. I enjoyed her authentic piece as she writes about her novice years in the class room. I felt alongside her as she described personal struggles and events. I actually thought I should keep a journal during my doctoral studies and perhaps this could shed light on my research (if I have time??!). She described teaching as anything but methodological. She talks about what she thought she should be doing and what actually consumed her. I appreciated her articulating disequilibrium subsequent to the “messy area”/ studium. Finally, the marriage of CNA and NI into one framework seems to have the greatest potential for changing agent and agency. Although I knew campaigning politicians were shrewd, I now know what to name it and how to examine it. What is troubling is that narrative rhetoric is difficult to dissect or question because of the personal connectedness. The macro and micro approach to understanding institutional power gives us that critical eye and metacognitive awareness essential in changing colonization of misguided beliefs and practices. This hybrid has transformative power and peeks my ecological perspective about policy influences.
Patty I agree with you about the shrewd politicians. I, too, feel more equipped to consider the rhetoric and what meaning underlies what is being said/reported. I hope, like Akin, you can find the time to create that journal! I think it would be an interesting project to see your personal growth and development of research skills during your time in this program. I would read that research!
Clandinin (2006) presented a case for the need for clear delineation of the terms ‘narrative’ and ‘narrative inquiry’ and the need for qualitative researchers to make careful use of narrative inquiry as it establishes its importance in qualitative research in response to positivist and post positivist paradigms. She referred to the work of Clandinin and Connelly (2000) to explain how narrative inquirers study experience by drawing on John Dewey two criteria of experience: first, interaction between individuals and second, continuity of past, present and future. She continued to refer to the work of Clandinin and Connelly (2000) to present the metaphor of a three-dimensional narrative inquiry space. The three dimensions include: personal and social interactions as the first dimension, continuity as the second dimension, and place, referred to as situation, as the third dimension. The significance of the three dimensional space is that makes room for the process of narrative inquiry to be relational between the narrative inquirer and the participant. To illuminate this dimensional space also referred to as the ‘landscape’ Clandinin (2006) wrote “As narrative inquirers engage in inquiry, they realize that they, too, are positioned on this landscape and both shape and are shaped by the landscape (p. 47). Akin (2002) presented her narratives about her own teaching practices in their unconcealed form. Akin does not gloss or polish her narratives to be like the classroom she thinks one might accept; rather, she writes with an exposed truth about what is happening in her classroom. She writes her narrartives to make sense of her own teaching. Akin explained “Importantly, this examination is no looking at what is wrong with the intent of trying to fix it, but rather focusing on some aspect of my teaching experience in the service of learning from that experience (p. 66)” Her writing has allowed her to occupy her own space in a suppressive teaching environment, construct her own understanding of being in the classroom, and assume responsibility for who she is as a teacher. This article was very difficult for me to read on a personal level. In my previous teaching experience at a suburban elementary school I spent a lot of time having conversation with my collegues about project based learning, new ideas for the kids, the staff, the school. I was constantly in my principal’s office with a new idea I had about school-wide reading. I had sheer joy when she let me have a celebration of reading on the last Friday of every month where every single student and staff gathered in the café-gym-atorium to sit and read for a half hour. It was the single most celebratory moment in my teaching career. We spent Monday mornings at the copy machine talking about how amazing it was to sit and watch hundreds of kids develop a love for reading alongside their teachers. AMAZING! In my current teaching position at an urban elementary school it feels like these conversations about how we can’t wait until Fridays and stand at the copy machine complaining on Mondays seem to be the only comfort we have for one another as a staff and the only way we even survive until Friday. Forget long-term retain ability or sustainability, we are trying to make it through the day. I was pretty close to tears when I identified myself with Akin’s description of those of us who have become “lesser teacher” because we have had to make a distinction between the person we are and the teacher we have been named. I did not used to feel the need for these two separate hats and two separate identities; now, these two separate identities are how I manage to relate to the other staff in the building. There is not much else we relate to one another about.
I agree with Amy that your story with students matters most in your teaching experiences. As Akin mentioned, contextual grounding narrative allows you to reflect on issues and dilemmas in the context, and connections and meanings will be made among experiences through your writing.
Kristen, I am sorry to hear about your separate identities and wonder if journaling would support you to see positive elements of your interactions with your students. I know that you are making a difference for your students!
I was able to navigate what narrative inquirers do from the Clandinin’s article. It said that narrative inquirers, working within the three-dimensional narrative inquiry space (interaction, continuity, and place), begin with telling stories or living stories to study people’s experiences and phenomenon (Clandinin, 2006). Narrative inquirers themselves cannot opt out of the inquiry, and they develop participants’ experiences, their own, or co-constructed experiences through the relational inquiry process (Clandinin & Connelly, 1998). Akin (2002) made connections between narrative inquiry and teaching practice. She stated, “Through writing narratives I place myself in a position where I can learn from my work, I participate in the definition my own practice, and finally, I assume responsibility for who I am as a teacher” (Akin, 2002, p.68). Both articles described similarly stories as being much like concept of maps in order to make sense and to see the big picture of story. Akin (2002) stated, ““Maps allow one to see the layout of the terrain from above so that mountains can be seen as bounded rather than as insurmountable obstacles” (p.63). She described teachers’ writing themselves into the text is substantial to the learning the narrative methodology, and both articles articulated the value of narratives lies in transformative ideas and stories that would change the world. This concept of change in society leads my mind naturally to the next article: Critical narrative analysis (CNA). According to Souto (2012), narratives are how we make sense of what we know, what we feel, and how we understand institutional and power discourses in society (p.162). Therefore, the goal of CNA is to promote critically meta-aware individuals who inquire institutional discourses, and make sense of their lives through co-constructing narratives in order to result in positive change (p.176). Lastly, I was wondering what the difference between narrative inquiry and narrative analysis are after reading Souto’s article. I wondered narrative analysis lies more in the analytical methodology of how to interpret everyday narratives rather than in the living out of stories of narrative inquiry.
Narrative inquiry/critical narrative inquiry is a natural and respectful way to learn and gain knowledge about critical issues. It invites the participants into the conversation and allows them to transform their thinking and ideas through narrative and discourse. In my role, I have the opportunity to support individuals and groups of individuals to consider their practice as it relates to the intuitional discourse. While I have confidence that our work has lead to positive outcomes, I have learned in these articles that teaching people to question institutional discourse is an effective way to support their transformation. I have always believed that the teachers I work with should work together and collectively make decisions and for that I am affirmed. My question is how as a researcher do you infuse education of concepts within these groups? Or you do not because as a researcher, your role is different – one that elicits the questions for the participants to answer? In this case the question may be do you need more information on this topic? Where might you find it? For me, pushing my own researcher identify includes considering what your function and purposes are within the experience. Honestly, I still feel that I am on the fence as to if this is something that I can do well or to my own satisfaction.
ReplyDeleteSimilarities between the articles point to the use of questioning and reflection as primary ways of conducting this research. All three authors, Akin (2002), Clandinin (2006) and Souto-Manning (2012), offer that identifying problems and reflecting on them allow the participants to conceptualize the problem and in turn be empowered to conceptualize them; thus, transforming their thoughts, actions and choices.
As for differences in the three articles, Akin (2002) used herself as the subject of her inquiry. She also used a strictly written narrative and reflective process to understand her teaching practices and transform her teaching practices. Clandinin (2006) described a narrative style that used stories as a way to understand the social context. She discusses that stories are living stories and that to be accurate the researcher engages and interacts with the participants. Clandinin describes the process as “there is fluidity and recursiveness as inquirers compose research texts, negotiate them with participants and compose further field texts and recompose research texts” (p.48).
Souto-manning (2012) shares with the reader critical narrative analysis, which supports individuals to reflect on, question and reposition themselves with the institutional discourses that directly impact and influence their daily lives.
In pushing yourself as a narrative inquiry researcher, I am not sure if you need to know more about the topic. In narrative inquiry, the process seems to be more naturally occurring. Perhaps, with the critical perspective , more knowledge might be necessary because of the story that you want to tell. It can vary from social, political and or economic stance or vantage point.
ReplyDeleteNarrative Inquiry has roots in humanities but has now extended into other areas of sciences. There is a Deweyian view of experience central to Narrative Inquiry (NI) while Critical Narrative Analysis (CAN) has a lens that challenges “commonly accepted social structures and reframes interactions as places for norms to be changed” (Friere, 1970) . NI has a constructivist strand while CNA has a critical perspective. There are three dimensions to this research: interaction, continuity, and situation. Clandinin and Connelly (2006) work from the Deweyian view to conceptualize NI. CNA works within these dimensions but with a critical eye and metacognitve awareness. NI is described further using the context of curriculum making. In order to attend to social, cultural, and institutional contexts, the professional landscape is examined. The embedded experiences surface with dialogue and articulation. The discourse draws attention to the lives that are amidst negotiation of curricula. Clandinin (2006) uses “bumping” to describe the tension. The social significance of NI includes negotiated answers to “so what “and “who cares” and I believe, CNA adds a “now what”. NI and CNA enrich dialogue among research, practice, and policy and therefore have relevance for my research interests. I hope to push research from this vantage point.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Clandinin,, “King (2004) chides us think about ethics in responsive and responsible ways” (2006). If you want questions answered about politics then tell that story. I thought about robustness and the manner of which King suggests addressing the study. Ethics can be seen as negotiation, respect, and mutual openness to multiple voices. I thought about the critical perspective and the need to look and examine interwoven relations and the themes that emerge. As far as examining responsiveness, attention to engaged participants and shifts within negotiations is crucial. I feel assured that robustness/rigour once again is affirmed in qualitative research.
Akin (2002) compares NI to maps in that they make life more navigable. I enjoyed her authentic piece as she writes about her novice years in the class room. I felt alongside her as she described personal struggles and events. I actually thought I should keep a journal during my doctoral studies and perhaps this could shed light on my research (if I have time??!). She described teaching as anything but methodological. She talks about what she thought she should be doing and what actually consumed her. I appreciated her articulating disequilibrium subsequent to the “messy area”/ studium.
Finally, the marriage of CNA and NI into one framework seems to have the greatest potential for changing agent and agency. Although I knew campaigning politicians were shrewd, I now know what to name it and how to examine it. What is troubling is that narrative rhetoric is difficult to dissect or question because of the personal connectedness. The macro and micro approach to understanding institutional power gives us that critical eye and metacognitive awareness essential in changing colonization of misguided beliefs and practices. This hybrid has transformative power and peeks my ecological perspective about policy influences.
Patty I agree with you about the shrewd politicians. I, too, feel more equipped to consider the rhetoric and what meaning underlies what is being said/reported.
DeleteI hope, like Akin, you can find the time to create that journal! I think it would be an interesting project to see your personal growth and development of research skills during your time in this program. I would read that research!
Clandinin (2006) presented a case for the need for clear delineation of the terms ‘narrative’ and ‘narrative inquiry’ and the need for qualitative researchers to make careful use of narrative inquiry as it establishes its importance in qualitative research in response to positivist and post positivist paradigms. She referred to the work of Clandinin and Connelly (2000) to explain how narrative inquirers study experience by drawing on John Dewey two criteria of experience: first, interaction between individuals and second, continuity of past, present and future. She continued to refer to the work of Clandinin and Connelly (2000) to present the metaphor of a three-dimensional narrative inquiry space. The three dimensions include: personal and social interactions as the first dimension, continuity as the second dimension, and place, referred to as situation, as the third dimension. The significance of the three dimensional space is that makes room for the process of narrative inquiry to be relational between the narrative inquirer and the participant. To illuminate this dimensional space also referred to as the ‘landscape’ Clandinin (2006) wrote “As narrative inquirers engage in inquiry, they realize that they, too, are positioned on this landscape and both shape and are shaped by the landscape (p. 47).
ReplyDeleteAkin (2002) presented her narratives about her own teaching practices in their unconcealed form. Akin does not gloss or polish her narratives to be like the classroom she thinks one might accept; rather, she writes with an exposed truth about what is happening in her classroom. She writes her narrartives to make sense of her own teaching. Akin explained “Importantly, this examination is no looking at what is wrong with the intent of trying to fix it, but rather focusing on some aspect of my teaching experience in the service of learning from that experience (p. 66)” Her writing has allowed her to occupy her own space in a suppressive teaching environment, construct her own understanding of being in the classroom, and assume responsibility for who she is as a teacher.
This article was very difficult for me to read on a personal level. In my previous teaching experience at a suburban elementary school I spent a lot of time having conversation with my collegues about project based learning, new ideas for the kids, the staff, the school. I was constantly in my principal’s office with a new idea I had about school-wide reading. I had sheer joy when she let me have a celebration of reading on the last Friday of every month where every single student and staff gathered in the café-gym-atorium to sit and read for a half hour. It was the single most celebratory moment in my teaching career. We spent Monday mornings at the copy machine talking about how amazing it was to sit and watch hundreds of kids develop a love for reading alongside their teachers. AMAZING!
In my current teaching position at an urban elementary school it feels like these conversations about how we can’t wait until Fridays and stand at the copy machine complaining on Mondays seem to be the only comfort we have for one another as a staff and the only way we even survive until Friday. Forget long-term retain ability or sustainability, we are trying to make it through the day. I was pretty close to tears when I identified myself with Akin’s description of those of us who have become “lesser teacher” because we have had to make a distinction between the person we are and the teacher we have been named. I did not used to feel the need for these two separate hats and two separate identities; now, these two separate identities are how I manage to relate to the other staff in the building. There is not much else we relate to one another about.
I agree with Amy that your story with students matters most in your teaching experiences. As Akin mentioned, contextual grounding narrative allows you to reflect on issues and dilemmas in the context, and connections and meanings will be made among experiences through your writing.
DeleteKristen, I am sorry to hear about your separate identities and wonder if journaling would support you to see positive elements of your interactions with your students. I know that you are making a difference for your students!
ReplyDeleteI was able to navigate what narrative inquirers do from the Clandinin’s article. It said that narrative inquirers, working within the three-dimensional narrative inquiry space (interaction, continuity, and place), begin with telling stories or living stories to study people’s experiences and phenomenon (Clandinin, 2006). Narrative inquirers themselves cannot opt out of the inquiry, and they develop participants’ experiences, their own, or co-constructed experiences through the relational inquiry process (Clandinin & Connelly, 1998).
ReplyDeleteAkin (2002) made connections between narrative inquiry and teaching practice. She stated, “Through writing narratives I place myself in a position where I can learn from my work, I participate in the definition my own practice, and finally, I assume responsibility for who I am as a teacher” (Akin, 2002, p.68).
Both articles described similarly stories as being much like concept of maps in order to make sense and to see the big picture of story. Akin (2002) stated, ““Maps allow one to see the layout of the terrain from above so that mountains can be seen as bounded rather than as insurmountable obstacles” (p.63). She described teachers’ writing themselves into the text is substantial to the learning the narrative methodology, and both articles articulated the value of narratives lies in transformative ideas and stories that would change the world. This concept of change in society leads my mind naturally to the next article: Critical narrative analysis (CNA). According to Souto (2012), narratives are how we make sense of what we know, what we feel, and how we understand institutional and power discourses in society (p.162). Therefore, the goal of CNA is to promote critically meta-aware individuals who inquire institutional discourses, and make sense of their lives through co-constructing narratives in order to result in positive change (p.176).
Lastly, I was wondering what the difference between narrative inquiry and narrative analysis are after reading Souto’s article. I wondered narrative analysis lies more in the analytical methodology of how to interpret everyday narratives rather than in the living out of stories of narrative inquiry.