Cautions of Research

Although I have attempted to ensure I have been reflexive and conducted a quality piece of research, it is necessary to take into account some cautions and points of reflection. Perhaps one of the most relevant cautions within narrative research is the acknowledgement that the conclusions I have drawn have resulted from my personal interpretation of the interview data. This interpretation is embedded within my own personal experiences and values. It is possible that others’ interpretations may be quite different from the story of the participants that I have created within this research.

Another caution within this research is the extent to which I answer the original research question. The research question refers to the investigation of how narratives change, which I have attempted to establish within my ‘Presentation and Interpretation of Findings’ section. In order to make sense of my findings, I have drawn on particular theories and research (e.g. Markus and Nurius, 1986). However, I could have chosen to draw on a number of other theories which may have been equally relevant. For example, Zimberoff’s (1989) notion of victim role may have been useful for explaining how Archie occasionally positions himself as being

150 disempowered. Alternatively, Miller’s (1993) research suggests that Mindfulness may uncover repressed emotions, which may have explained why Archie continues to use powerful negative descriptions of his feelings within his post-intervention interview (e.g. “really depressed”, “I just died inside”). The theories I have chosen to use are likely to have affected how my findings are understood by the reader, and to have impacted on the answer I have given to my research question (i.e. narratives have changed in relation to participants’ changing sense of self).

A further consideration within this research is the potential for a causal link being made by either myself or the reader between the changes in narratives and the Mindfulness intervention. I have attempted to show how narratives have changed, and interpret these using Mindfulness as one paradigm with which to do this, but acknowledge that there may be multiple other paradigms that may account for the changes. There were also factors within the intervention itself that may have had an impact on changes in narratives, that were not unique to the Mindfulness intervention but related to providing a therapeutic space (e.g. encouraging reflection, having a ‘safe space’ (Rosenthal and Frank, 1956)). When presenting findings in this way, it is possible that the reader may make their own inferences about a causal link between Mindfulness and narrative changes. Additionally, participants wanted me to acknowledge within my research that they felt Mindfulness had had a causal impact on their lives. I have attempted to keep these points in mind when writing my research, balancing participants’ voice with a desire to ensure a causal link was not made and research remained as credible and honest as possible.

151 An additional point to make with regard to the changes found within narrative relates to the methodology I used. This research followed a design in which participants were interviewed before and after an intervention. Whilst this was useful to investigate changes in narratives, it adds multiple complicating factors. One factor is that it is likely that participants became more skilled at narrating their lives as a result of practice, meaning that post-intervention narratives would be more coherent than pre-intervention interviews. White and Epston (1990) reinforce this point:

“The re-storying of experience necessitates the active involvement of persons in the reorganization of their experience…Invitations for persons to engage in activities that generate an awareness of a process in which they are simultaneously performers in and audience to their own performance…provides a context of reflexivity...(which) brings forth new choices for persons regarding the authoring of themselves, others and their relationships.”

Alongside this, Hutchinson, Wilson, and Wilson (1994) emphasise that qualitative research may provide some benefits to participants that may be associated with other therapeutic approaches, including self-awareness, having a voice, and feeling empowered. These were areas that participants commented on experiencing within the ‘taking it back’ meeting, or were found within the analysis of the interviews. This suggests that the process of being interviewed and being involved in this research (White and Epston, 1990, p. 17-18)

152 should be acknowledged as being a possible influence on the narrative changes found within this research.

Another associated caution relates to the way in which the Mindfulness intervention was carried out. Throughout the intervention sessions, participants used the space to reflect on their lives and assimilate the Mindfulness experience with their interpretations and narratives of self. As a researcher, it was fascinating to see how participants’ narratives changed through the sessions, but equally it left me wondering if this space was not available and incorporated into sessions, whether participants would have internalised the Mindfulness experience. It is also acknowledged that this reflective environment may have increased reflexivity within post-intervention interviews, but is not a component of the intervention that could be considered unique to Mindfulness.

A further caution relates to the participant group I worked with. James and Archie had both been identified as having behavioural difficulties. The category ‘behavioural difficulties’ is quite broad, and the category could encompass pupils who exhibit a wide range of behavioural types and degrees of severity, with a wide range of possible functions and external factors influencing on the behaviour. Archie and James both had unresolved feelings which may have contributed to their behaviour, and may have led to there being similarities between the analyses of their interviews (e.g. both showed changes in sense of self). However, if their behaviour had related to a different need or function, they may not have shown the same narrative changes as have been shown within this research.

153 The final points to consider relate to me and my involvement as the researcher. I was more practised and felt more confident at conducting interviews by the post-intervention interview. This may have affected the atmosphere within the interview room or the questions I asked. I noticed within James’ post-intervention interview that I used the word ‘change’ regularly, which may have directed the interview content more than other interviews. Alongside this, participants and I formed a relationship through the research journey, which meant that I knew much more information about pupils lives, which I had to be careful not to ‘seek out’ using questioning within the post-intervention interviews. Had I had more time available to conduct a larger research project, it would have been interesting to record, transcribe and analyse the Mindfulness sessions to capture the data I sometimes felt I was losing during sessions, although this may have impacted on the therapeutic element of the sessions. Finally, it is worth acknowledging that the relationship I formed with participants and their unfailing kindness and commitment towards the research meant that participants tried very hard to ‘give the intervention a chance’. James admitted that he felt very nervous during the post-intervention interview because he wanted to ‘do well’ so that I had lots to write about in my research, and also that he was trying not to say people’s real names so that I would not have to take them out of my transcripts whilst transcribing the research.