Biographic Narrative Interpretive Method (BNIM)

BNIM is a methodological approach to narrative interviewing and narrative analysis, which assumes that personal experience narratives express both conscious and unconscious meanings of lived experience. BNIM calls itself a ‘psychosocial’ methodology which facilitates the interpretation of an individual’s experience within his or her social or historical context.

Wengraf (2010) describes this as “historically-evolving persons-in-historically-evolving situations” (2010:50); and he explains that the method assumes that “story-telling is more expressive of ‘deep-structures’” (2010:178).

BNIM was developed within the traditions of phenomenological research and was first employed by Rosenthal (1993), who developed a narrative interviewing technique based on Overmann’s (1979; 1980) hermeneutical case construction, and Schutze’s (1983) method of life story analysis (cited in Wengraf, 2010:112). BNIM draws on a ‘minimalist-passive’

approach (Jones, 2004) to interviewing, with the first interview being opened with a ‘single question aimed at inducing narrative’ (the SQUIN). This question is not followed-up,

developed or explained in any way by the researcher. Instead, researcher interventions are limited to facilitative noises and non-verbal support, such as nodding and smiling.

The rationale behind the SQUIN is to generate an uninterrupted narrative that maintains the participant’s gestalt (i.e. a spontaneous pattern of speech that completes itself fully). This enables participants to tell their own story in their own way and to surface the experiences that are important and significant to them, thereby having greater control of the interview. The danger of treating interviews as ‘conversations’ is that they can become structured and led by the researcher, which may mean the participant talks about issues that the researcher deems to be important, as opposed to surfacing issues that are particularly significant to them and their own lived experience. Using the SQUIN and minimal intervention by the researcher means that biographic narratives can be powerfully expressive.

It is important, however that the researcher tries to create a ‘safe space’ so that the interviewee does not feel exposed in being asked to talk at length about their experience.

Some of the participants in the present study appeared to sense this exposure, so adopted a self-preservation strategy at the beginning of their interview. For example, Edgar spends the first 200 lines of his narrative detailing his career ‘background’ before he begins to recount the story of his kidney cancer. These digressions, however, formed an important part of the analysis of Edgar’s case, when a hermeneutics of suspicion was applied. Given the intensity of the interview and analysis processes, BNIM lends itself to a small number of cases, usually two or three and rarely more than five or six (Wengraf, 2001:145).

3.5.1 BNIM as an approach to data collection

BNIM involves lightly-structured depth interviewing containing three interviews or

‘sub-sessions’. In sub-session 1, the interview begins with a single question. The SQUIN that was developed for the present study was as follows:

“Please tell me your trauma story including all the events and experiences that were

significant for you from then and up to today. Please start wherever you like. I’ll listen; I won’t interrupt; I’ll just take notes for afterwards.”

In sub-session 1, participant narratives lasted between 19 minutes (Diane) and 72 minutes (Edgar). Sub-session 2 takes place around 15 minutes after sub-session 1, with participants taking a break in-between, while notes are made by the researcher on the areas of the

sub-session 1 narrative to probe on further (Wengraf, 2010). In the present study, sub-sub-session 2 narratives lasted between 38 minutes (Diane) and 89 minutes (Peter).

In BNIM, the purpose of sub-session 2 is to ask for more detail on some of the topics that emerged in sub-session 1. Sub-session 1 elicits the ‘big’ story and sub-session 2 enables the researcher to dig down into the detail by probing for smaller stories which richly describe those experiences that were introduced but not expanded in the initial narrative (Wengraf, 2010). These smaller stories are called ‘precise incident narratives’ or PINs. A PIN is defined as:

“An account of a particular experience that the person has lived through - The best PINs are narrations in which the person appears to be at least in part re-living the experience that they are talking about.” (Wengraf, 2010:547)

According to BNIM principles, the researcher should probe in the order in which the topics were raised in the initial sub-session 1 narrative, starting with the first and always ending with the last topic from the initial narrative. This is so that the gestalt of the initial story remains intact. According to BNIM, the researcher should also use the same words used by the participant when asking for more story. For example; “you said….can you given me some more detail about that particular experience”. During some of the interviews, I found it difficult to narrow down the topics I wanted to focus on in sub-session 2 since so much emerged in sub-session 1. For example, in my self-debrief following Edgar’s interviews, I noted in my research diary:

“I skipped some themes as I had so many to cover and just focused on the work related ones.” (Research Diary, 10 November 2010)

My decisions were guided by the research question in the present study. (How does the experience of personal trauma affect the way in which managers view and approach their work and their relationships at work?) In sub-session 2, therefore, I probed on the topics that were related to their trauma and their work. When sub-session 2 had finished and after the interviewee had left, I spent half an hour ‘self-debriefing’. The self-debrief is a written stream of consciousness, containing any ideas, memories and feelings that were triggered by the interview. It is also an opportunity to document any initial interpretations as they come to mind at the time (Wengraf, 2010). The self-debrief was a really useful exercise in working

reflexively immediately after the interview and contributed to the reflexive approach that was adopted in the present study (see section 3.9). Each of my self-debriefs also acted as an aide-memoire for the sub-sessions that followed, so that I could remind myself how I was feeling at the end of each sub-session before I started the next.

Sub-session 3 took place approximately one month after sub-sessions one and two (Wengraf, 2010) and took the form of a more traditional semi-structured interview, where I asked questions that I had developed during earlier cognitive interviews. (Before data collection began, I drew on a convenience sample of individuals who had suffered personal trauma to ask them to comment on the topic guide for sub-session 3. This element of the research design is explained in the section 3.11.) I used sub-session 3 to explore the five dimensions of post-traumatic growth with participants. However, accounts of growth emerged unprompted in Edgar’s (lines 801-851), Bill’s (lines 590-609) and Peter’s (lines 406-432) sub-session 1 narratives, which indicates that each of them recognised positive changes in themselves independent of my later questioning.

Furthermore, sub-session 3 gave participants an opportunity reflect on the research process itself. Edgar described the process as “cathartic” (Edgar, sub-session 3, lines 50-52); and others described their traumas as ‘roller coaster’ rides that continue (Edgar, sub-session 3, lines 91-92; Bill, sub-session 3, lines 37-44). This indicates the fluid nature of their

experiences, as human beings “in process” (Dahlberg, Todres and Galvin, 2009:267), which demands a methodological approach that is open to understanding the ways in which these participants change during the course of their trauma journeys. In sub-session 3, I was also able to elicit their reasons for volunteering for the study. Edgar described his need to share the positives of his experience (sub-session 3, lines 106-108) and for Bill it was an

opportunity to get “closure” (sub-session 3, line 98). All four participants talked of a need to generate a greater understanding in the workplace of the impact of personal trauma (Edgar, sub-session 3, lines 117-118; Bill, sub-session 3, lines 100-104; Diane, sub-session 3, lines 52-53; Peter, sub-session 3, lines 134-136); particularly in terms of its long-term

psychological affects, which may remain hidden at work (Bill, sub-session 3, lines 100-104;

Diane, sub-session 3, lines 79-82).

3.5.2 BNIM as an approach to data analysis

BNIM interpretation follows a ‘twin-track’ process, with the biographic data about an

individual’s life (e.g. education history, career progression) being analysed separately from the telling of their story. Both the ‘lived life’ and ‘telling of the told story’ are analysed

sequentially and separately (Wengraf, 2010). This is so that the social realities of the individual’s ‘outer world’ can be compared to the psycho-dynamics of their inner world as manifested in the way in which their story is told. BNIM interpretation follows ten clearly defined stages (see Table 3.1). This begins with the preparation of a verbatim transcript of the interview. Verbatim transcripts are important, since BNIM analysis is not only focused on the words that are spoken; non-verbal clues, such as displays of emotion, pauses and laughter are equally important avenues for interpretation. In the interview transcripts in the present study, for example, pauses are represented using brackets, with stop marks for each second of paused speech and moments of laughter or emotion are described in square brackets. (See Appendix H.)

Table 3.1: Ten Stages of BNIM analysis (adapted from Wengraf, 2010) 1 Constructing the verbatim

This involves stripping all ‘objective’ (verifiable) data from the narrative account (such as years of births, facts about career history) and creating a separate document which comprises a list of key dates. (See Appendix K.)

3 Creating a Biographic Data Analysis (BDA)

BDA is a summary of current understandings of the pattern of the lived life.

This starts with the ‘blind’ interpretative panel and is then reviewed and revised by the researcher following the panel discussions. (See Appendix L.)

4 ^Imagining This involves imagining different ways in which the person who lived their life in this way might go about telling their story. (See Appendix N.)

TRACK TWO: EXPORING THE “TELLING OF THE TOLD STORY”

5 Constructing a Text Structure Sequentialisation (TSS)

This involves chunking the told story into segments or ‘meaning units’. Each chunk is labelled for the type of text it contains (e.g. description,

argumentation, evaluation, PIN). (See Appendix K.)

6 Conducting a Thematic Flow Analysis (TFA)

This is started during the ‘blind’ interpretative panel, where sequential segments are analysed thematically within the ‘flow’ (i.e. order) in which they emerge. This is then reviewed and revised by the researcher following the panel. This is to create a summary of current understandings of the person who told their story in this way and the pattern of its telling (i.e. the structure and content of the narrative account). (See Appendix M.)

7 Conducting micro-analysis This involves focusing in on particular chunks of the story to gain a deeper understanding of the teller’s identity. (See Appendix O.)

8 Relating the lived life to the told story

Thinking about if and how the patterns of the lived life and told story relate to each other. (See Chapter 4.)

9 Constructing the case account Writing up the case. (See chapter 4)

10 Conducting a cross-case analysis

Examining the areas of convergence and divergence across cases.

Other stages in the ten-stage, ‘twin-track’ model of interpretation include; the creation and subsequent analysis of a chronology of biographical data to gain insight and understanding into the pattern of the individual’s ‘lived life’ (see Appendix L). This includes ‘imagining’

different ways in which the story of that life might be told by the person who lived it, both by the researcher and by the independent ‘panel’ members (see Appendix N). Within the ‘told story’ track, a key stage is the dividing the story into sequential segments, which are then analysed thematically within the order in which they emerge (see Appendix L). One of the final stages is the bringing of the two-tracks together, the ‘lived life’ with the ‘telling of the told story’ to construct and test previous hypotheses relating to the two tracks.

One powerful element within BNIM analysis is the use of ‘blind’ interpretative panels. These panels are convened by the researcher in order to help build in rigour to the interpretative process. The ‘ideal’ panel consists of individuals who are not familiar with the research; with at least one person with a similar profile to the interviewee; including people from different professional backgrounds and interests; and containing people who are interested in the method or the topic (Wengraf, 2010). Between four and six people were involved in the panels in the present study (see Appendix M). Tom Wengraf took part in the first panel (Edgar) in order to support the application of the BNIM method. In Edgar’s case, where the BNIM method was applied in full, there were two separate panel sessions; one which explored Edgar’s ‘lived life’ and one which explored Edgar’s ‘telling of his told story’. These panels involved a ‘chunk-by-chunk’ interpretative process, in which one element of the lived life (or told story) was revealed at a time, with interpretations being generated by panel members after each ‘chunk’ about the kind of person that might have lived that life or told their story in that way. In the subsequent cases (Bill, Diane and Peter) one panel session took place, where only the told story was interpreted ‘chunk-by-chunk’ by interpretative panels. This was because a decision was made to adapt the method following its application in the first case. (This is explained in more detail at the end of chapter 4.)