ELICITING ‘CLASS TALK’ WITH THE USE OF NARRATIVE INQUIRY

So far this chapter has discussed the methodological challenges of doing research on social class and the important ways in which feminist methodologies have contributed to good practice. However, these do not serve as guides for how to conduct interviews. I was still troubled by the problem of asking people about their classed experiences within the strange context of

possible class disavowal, and with an awareness of not only the complexity of the intersection of other identities, but also sensitivity to the topic as potentially distressing. With that aim in mind, broadly speaking I took a narrative inquiry approach to my interviews (not necessarily to my analysis) which I understood as a ‘study of individuals in their social and historical context’ (Chase, 2005:651). Researchers using narrative inquiry come from a broad church, as Chase argues:

Contemporary narrative inquiry can be characterized as an amalgam of interdisciplinary analytic lenses, diverse approaches and both traditional and innovative methods – all revolving around an interest in the biographical particulars as narrated by the one who lives them. (ibid)

It seems a reasonable and sociological approach to qualitative research, which is not committed to generalisable findings, and thereby enjoys the luxury of being able to effect in-depth and time-consuming research with relatively small numbers of people. Contrary to my initial understanding, narrative inquiry is truly a methodology, in that its approach may encompass every – or any – stage of the research process, from methods to analysis. Taking a narrative approach to interviews does not necessarily commit the researcher to a purely narrative approach to the analysis, just as a narrative approach to analysis does not depend on the deliberate elicitation of stories at the interview stage. Narratives can be found in many forms, and do not rely on a narrow understanding of narrative as story telling or on a strict structural analysis.

While extensive life histories or stories, characterised by minimal interruption by the interviewer, are a common unit of analysis, a narrative inquiry may cover a relatively select area of a participant’s life (Chase, 2005). Locating my approach in a post hoc manner, it seems that it sits fairly well with what Corrine Squire (2008) calls an experience-centred approach, which assumes the following:

Narratives are sequential and meaningful. Narratives are definitively human.

Narratives ‘re-present’ experience, in the sense of reconstituting it; as well as mirroring it.

Narratives display transformation or change. (Squire, 2008;58)

As I interviewed participants over the course of a year, the last point illustrates the particular relevance of using a narrative approach in this research, as it is especially suitable for capturing how participants understand continuities and changes in their experience over time. After the usual formalities and light conversation, I started the first interviews with ‘Tell me how you came to be a graduate trainee at the firm’, followed by ‘Tell me the story of your education’. In so doing, I explained how a story differed to a chronological telling of events in the sense that: stories have beginnings, middles and (partial) endings; they tend to have characters; there may be obstacles that are overcome and outcomes that are achieved; scene setting is encouraged; and emotions and multiple perspectives can be told. If participants wanted to know where to start, I told them that it was up to them. Narrative inquiry differs to a timeline

of events in that the point of view of the narrator is privileged and understood as ‘retrospective meaning making’ (Squire, 2008).

Participants were fully aware that the research was interested in social class, and their experiences of both education and the graduate labour market. But, as aware as I was of the problems associated with the (dis)avowal of class, I sought to stimulate ‘class talk’ in the early stages of the interview process by eliciting narratives about people’s education and their efforts to join the graduate labour market; this is because research had already demonstrated their classed dimension. In the first interview, if the participant did not make direct reference to their social class of origin, I would ask them if they considered themselves to belong to any particular class, which would often elicit a conversation about what the word and the categories might mean. These exchanges often reflected the ambiguity associated with class terms, and I was frequently asked about them. In response, I sometimes took the standard recommended advice offered to qualitative interviewers that I should reflect the question back to the interviewee in order not to bias or lead them (Bryman, 2012). But from an early stage this sometimes felt like an inappropriate response and so the terms were sometimes explored, negotiated and reinterpreted between us. These moments are central to my analysis and are not considered to be failings on the interview technique or question formulation. Indeed, they are a reflection of the research topic.

Although I was not waiting for talk relating to class or social background to come up spontaneously, it became clear from the interviews that the language around the categorisation of social class was initially insufficient for the expression of classed meanings. In allowing the negotiation and interpretation to occur, I was sharing Mishler’s (1986) perspective that ‘interviewers and respondents strive to arrive together at meanings that both can understand [and that] we must attend to the discursive nature of the interview process’ (ibid. p.65). In taking the approach that I did, I believe that I put myself in a very good position to answer my research questions and specifically to deal with the thorny issues of (dis)avowal that they create. Before turning to the details of my data collection methods, I will discuss the processes of gaining and maintaining access to my research site, the recruitment of participants, and issues surrounding informed consent.

THE PARTICIPANTS AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS