Criticality and independence in learning (objective 1 and 2) 5 Development of transformative study methods (objective 1)

Voice and Representation: whose story is it anyway?

‘*I+ssues of voice’ are an important consideration for the narrative researcher who must consider how their choices in terms of who speaks and how will affect the text (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000, p.147; Chase, 2005; Coulter and Smith, 2009). To clarify this concept of voice Clandinin and Connelly (2000) offer the notion of signature as a means of thinking about both participant and research identity creation in the text. They suggest that a participant must be able to recognise themselves in the written text but also that the text must be recognisable as the researcher’s writing (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000). In my restorying, I struggled to write with the words of others. I did not want to significantly change the words the participants had chosen to use and yet I had to edit their stories to create a narrative form which was meaningful, interesting and readable. I came back to Rhodes’ metaphor of the ghost writer, I was using their stories, their words but also making editorial decisions and creative ones to restory the raw data into narratives which told of their lives in a way that recognised their value and yet added value. It is important to consider that there is ‘a moral dimension to the selective use of information,

underpinned...by the social values of the researchers’ (Greenbank, 2003, p.796). Trahar (2008) suggests that as narrative inquiry is a collaborative process in which the researcher takes an active role, rather than that of a detached observer, then a reflexive approach is necessary. Sikes (2010) argues that it is ethically important that researcher positions be revealed as these influence both the writing and the reading. But there were further issues

64 relating to voice and representation which I encountered later in the research writing

process (See Voice, representation and the ways we make meaning, page 65).

Chase (2005) presents a typology which serves to understand the varying voices narrative researchers utilize in the representations of their research. Chase (2005, p.664-6) argues that narrative researchers will often employ one or all three of these voices: an

‘authoritative voice’; a ‘supportive voice’ and an ‘interactive voice’. An authoritative stance provides the researcher’s interpretation of the story usually with reference to relevant theory (Chase, 2005). This approach can prioritise the researcher’s voice over the narrator’s (Denzin, 1997), however, as Laslett (1999) suggests if the researcher includes substantial extracts from the narrator the reader is then able to come to their own interpretation rather than relying on that of the researcher. I agree that readers should be given the opportunity to make their own interpretation of the narratives. But again the process of selection involved in providing fragments places the researcher in a privileged position where they are able to influence that interpretation. It is also a process of fragmentation which disrupts the narrator. When researchers take a supportive stance they highlight the narrator’s voice and any consideration of the process by which the researcher presents the narration is very often either deemphasised or left out altogether (Chase, 2005). The interactive researcher’s voice seeks to explore the interaction between researcher and narrator and the influence the researcher has on the text (Chase, 2005). Others argue that ‘the range of narrative possibilities within any group of people is potentially limitless’ …’thus, many contemporary narrative researchers approach any narrative as an instance of the possible relationships between a narrator’s active construction of self, on the one hand, and the social, cultural, and historical circumstances that enable and constrain that narrative, on the other’ (Chase, 2005, p.667). If we move inward, outward, backwards and forwards it would seem that the possible positions are indeed limitless or at least that more than one voice can be adopted within a text and the voice will be dictated by purpose.

It is often argued that a reflexive approach must be taken by the researcher to ensure awareness of position in the research and text, Coulter and Smith (2009) review literature which argues that this awareness should also extend to the literary devices chosen by the researcher in their representation of the participants’ story. Related to this issue is that of person and whether to use first, second or third (Coulter and Smith, 2009). Each has its own

65 particular problems as Coulter and Smith (2009) highlight. If a first person narrative is

adopted a connection can be made between narrator and reader however only one perspective can be given as the character can only reasonably tell of what she witnesses (Coulter and Smith, 2009). Clandinin and Connelly (2000, p.122-123) argue for the first person however, they urge that in its use there be a realisation ‘that “I” is connected to “they”’. When a third person stance is taken it is possible to see everything and tell the story from the perspective of all participants; however it must be questioned whether the researcher has the knowledge or the right to speak for others (Coulter and Smith, 2009). Further, it must be acknowledged that such omniscience is the perspective of one person: the researcher, who must select the stories to tell from their data and makes choices based on the ‘significance’ of what to include (Coulter and Smith, 2009, p.580). Just as it is

problematic to assume to be able to represent a story from the perspective of each of its actors it is equally so to assume to know what one person is thinking and feeling especially when that person’s experiences are very different to that of the researcher’s (Coulter and Smith, 2009). As a researcher I can only therefore acknowledge that I speak for others, but through using a reflexive account detail the decisions and choices made in the

representation I have come to.

As a writer the researcher can signpost to the reader intent and perspective which can lead to a questioning of the text (Coulter and Smith, 2009). Smith (2009) argues that this in fact leads to a desired reading of the text. Narratives he (Smith, 2009) argues are not polyphonic and usually convey one argument and in order to allow for multiple readings authors should seek to include in their texts details of their authorial choices. In response to this issue in the end I rejected prose and turned to poetry as a possible polyphonic form. I discuss this in detail later in ‘Poetic transcription/analysis/interpretation – ways to make meaning’ (page 67).

The distance of the author from the events and characters can influence how the readers connect with the story (Coulter and Smith, 2009). Such literary devices as ‘tone’, metaphor, figurative language and theme can affect the way in which a text is read and should be used to create ‘unifying themes’ Coulter and Smith (2009, p.585) suggest. The final text that the narrative researcher produces can take many forms with ‘fictionalizing, representing multiple voices, and interweaving various genres, such as journal entries, transcribed talk,

66 and photographs’ among the choices (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000, p.137). The decisions to be made that influence these choices are ‘voice, signature, narrative form, and audience’ (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000, p.138). What the narrative researcher is searching for is ‘a form to represent … storied lives in storied ways, not to represent storied lives as exemplars of formal categories’ (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000, p.141). It is important to remember here that the goal is not generalisability but rich personal stories that resonate in many different ways for many different readers. However, the difficulty for the narrative inquirer is that their subjects are living through a process of change and their stories need to be seen in a three dimensional space (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000). The stories told hint at stories untold and stories still to be told.