I viewed each transcription through the lenses of narrative processes, language, context and moments. Each of these lenses “highlight both the individuality and the complexity of a life” (McCormack, 2000, p. 282). Before viewing the transcripts, I immersed myself in the data to (1) check the accuracy of the transcriptions and; (2) reflect on any initial reactions I had to the stories told during the interview that might later influence analysis (McCormack, 2004). McCormack (2004) calls this process active listening. I recorded my response to the following questions in a reflective diary for each interview:
• Who are the characters in this conversation?
• What are the main events? Where/When do they occur?
• As researcher, how am I positioned in relation to the participant? • As researcher, how am I positioned during this conversation?
• How am I responding emotionally and intellectually to this participant? (McCormack, 2000, p. 288)
specific narrative processes to enrich their stories. McCormack states that these stories have:
. . . recognizable boundaries; a beginning (an orientation describing who, what, where and when) and an end (a coda which brings the story to a close). Included within these boundaries is an abstract (summarizes the point of the story), an evaluation (highlights the point) and a series of linked events/actions organized chronologically or thematically in response to the question: And then what happened?” (p. 224)
The narrative processes include, argumentation, theorizing, description and
augmentation. McCormack explains that the term argumentation refers to an abstract element that may not come from a story already told but rather from an outside story; theorizing refers to when a “storyteller may become reflective, trying to work out ‘why?’, attempting to theorize their experience” (p. 224); description refers to the details said about “particular people, places, or things” (p. 224); and the term augmentation refers to the added “information to stories already told as the conversation stimulates recollection of additional story pieces” (p. 224). Rosenthal (1993) refers to the first three as “styles of presentation” (p. 69). McCormack added the latter narrative style after noticing that some of her participants for her doctoral research added information to previous stories told in their interviews. For this study, I was able to locate and identify all four narrative
processes in interview transcriptions. But first, I identified the stories from each transcript and separated them from the main text. The boundaries of each story were then identified and clearly documented within the transcripts. As did McCormack, titles were given to thesestories based on the evaluation (the point) of each story. The narrative processes
were then incorporated back to enrich the stories I identified and separated from the text. For some participants, I constructed new stories through any additional information presented during our interview and identified these stories in Chapter four by using third person.
Language is another lens I used to reflect on how my participants constructed their identities. McCormack (2004) identifies three language features that I used to reflect on for each transcription: (1) what is said; (2) how is it said; and (3) what remains unsaid. McCormack describes the first language feature as: word groupings; words that assume common understandings; words that make space for thought; specialized vocabularies; words used to talk about self-image, relationships and their environment. McCormack describes the second language feature as: active/passive voice; speech functions (e.g., statement, commands, exclamations and etc); pronouns (where they were used); internal vs. internal/external dialogue; and imagery. McCormack describes the third language feature as: silence; tone; speed of delivery; inflections; emotions; volume and hesitations. Viewing transcripts through these lenses helped me construct interpretive stories that I believed align with the ways participants constructed their own identities. It also helped me locate areas within the text where tensions may have been present (i.e., paying close attention to what remained unsaid).
Next I examined context. I examined participants’ stories using the context of situation and the context of culture (Halliday, 1985). When examining the context of situation, I looked more closely at the interactions between participants and researcher during each of the interviews. When examining the context of culture, I looked more closely at what each story of practice meant in relation to the wider society. After careful
examination of each transcript, I recorded my response to the following questions in my reflective diaries concerning the context of situation:
• What can be learned from the participant’s response to my opening question and to my wind-up question?
• What can be learned about our interactions from the appearance of the text? For example: the number of questions and answers; who asks the questions; the type of questions; who interrupts whom, and where and how frequently does this occur?
• What can be learned about our interaction from what is not said in the text? For example: Does the participant ask me a question without giving me time to respond? Are there places in the interview transcript where I feel I could have responded but didn’t? Why didn’t I respond? (McCormack, 2004, p. 226)
I then recorded my response to any of the following questions that resonated with each individual transcript concerning the context of culture:
• What cultural fictions does each person draw on to construct his/her view of what counts as being a person?
• How have these ways of talking, thinking and being positioned each
individual? Where does she/he conform to them? Where does she/he resist or challenge them? Where does she/he rewrite them? (McCormack, 2004, p. 226)
Viewing the transcripts in these ways illustrated tensions within each story. The best way to describe viewing transcripts through this lens is to say that I reflected on any and all
significant moments that had an impact on the meaning of the stories told. The term moments includes but is not limited to surprises; strangeness; insight; bewilderment; sadness; joy; contradiction, confusion; self-questioning or; epiphanies (McCormack, 2000).
Creating interpretive stories is an improvisational process. Table 3.1 illustrates the two steps I followed to construct an interpretive story for each participant.
Table 3.1 Summary of the process of constructing an interpretive story
Steps Tasks
Step 1: Compose the story middle
Re-connect with the conversation through active listening. Locate the narrative processes in the transcript.
Return enriched and constructed stories for comment and feedback.
Respond to the participant’s comments. Form the first draft of the interpretive story: List agreed story titles.
Temporal ordering of story titles. Add the text of each story. Redraft story middle:
View the transcript through multiple lenses: language, context and moments.
Take into account the views highlighted throughout these lenses.
Step 2: complete the story-add a beginning and ending
Source: Adapted from McCormack, 2004
Compose an orientation and choose the title. Add coda.
Use visual form and contextual strategies to enhance presentation.
Share the story with the participant.
Reflect on the story in light of the participant’s comments. Write an epilogue.
Once I had created a “middle” for each participant, I shared the story with that participant and requested their feedback. I conducted two rounds of member checks. The first round was during step one (see Table 3.1). I reflected upon their feedback;
completed the remaining tasks of step one and moved on to step two as shown in Table 3.1. The second round of member checks was conducted during the construction of the interpretive story. This decreased the possibility that I was misrepresenting participants’ accounts, but also provided me with the means to collaboratively construct the
interpretive stories with participants. For each member check, participants were invited to respond to the following:
• Does what I have written make sense to you?
• How does this account compare with your experience?
• Have any aspects of your experience been omitted? • Please include these wherever you feel it is appropriate.
• Do you wish to remove any aspect(s) of your experience from this text?
• Please feel free to make any other comments” (McCormack, 2000, p. 299)