Rejection of alternative methodologies

Narrative Analysis

The theoretical underpinnings of my methodology will justify my reasons to select a thematic analysis of individuals’ accounts rather than a narrative analysis. The main aim of the thematic analysis was to elucidate individuals’ meanings and changing orientations towards their music preferences. On the surface, a narrative approach may seem the logical choice to establish the social practices of music preferences of individuals within their own historical and cultural frameworks. It is accepted that some researchers albeit positioned inside or outside of symbolic interactionism may argue that a narrative analysis of individual accounts, of ‘the real world’, is the more appropriate choice of methodological approach rather than a thematic analysis. However, after a great deal of consideration, I decided that the narrative research approach was not for this study. When I carried out extensive enquiry into the different frameworks of narrative research, I found a huge amount of very confusing and contradictory positions located within one apparent field of enquiry. On closer inspection there are a multitude of different strands to narrative research and not all originate from similar epistemological or

methodological positions. I’m sure that there are many narrative researchers who would argue that narrative analysis is the most natural host for my research problem; however, it would not be an understatement to say that my attempts to understand and define the parameters of narrative analysis. Trying to position my research within this fluid evasive paradigm caused a huge amount of frustration and time wasted. It is abundantly clear that the term narrative research holds a multitude of apparently contradictory meanings (Georgakopoulou, 2007). The path to discover the right tool to discover emergent meanings within narrative research is most certainly obfuscated by the variety of different epistemological and methodological positions. Langdridge & Hagger-Johnson (2009: 458) have

recognized the near zealotry and conflicting views held by different narrative researchers, which can only serve to cause confusion except for the most experienced and knowledgeable of narrative researchers:

Perhaps because of the different research traditions of people working in life story and narrative research, there is considerable disagreement over quite what narrative research is, or indeed, should be! This is a serious problem for those of us who would want this approach to grow, as students (and indeed academics) will find themselves frustrated by technical debates and arguments and an apparent lack of consensus about the methods to be employed.

The authors have also suggested that if a broader perspective of narrative research is taken, then definitions of narrative research may be divided between analysis of content and narrative practices. Analysis of content is an examination of the bigger picture of how individuals give meaning to their experiences which fits the aims of this study. In contrast, narrative practices is to focus on the creation of a narrative through a micro-level discourse analysis of particular speech patterns, colloquialisms, grammar and organization of language (e.g. Riessman, 1993). An understanding or analysis of these linguistic devices was of no interest at all.

Phenomenology

An alternative narrative approach considered was a phenomenological analysis of individuals’ life stories. A phenomenological analysis of individuals’ meanings and experiences of cultural artifacts could be seen as highly relevant to this study. After all it should be noted that the central arguments of phenomenology sit very close to some schools of symbolic interactionism. This in itself is probably of no great surprise. William James, considered to be one of the founders of the social philosophy pragmatism alongside Mead, Dewey and Cooley in Chicago (widely accepted as the Chicago school of sociology), was

instrumental in developing a flexible theory which took an interpretive study of human experience as one of its core values. The developments of the Chicago school led to the foundations of symbolic

interactionism. However James’ definitions of the self, the ‘I’ as the centre of consciousness, have led to many researchers (e.g. Baldwin, 1986; Denzin, 1992, Plummer, 1991) to label him as a

object or the ‘me’ and that an individual had as many selves as relationships that the individual knew (Denzin, 2005). However there is one important distinction between James’ self and the Mead self and that is that Mead’s self exists in the real world and not solely in the mind as James and Cooley believed. The Mead definition of the self is the one that is considered crucial for this thesis. In other words, for James and adherents of phenomenology the self exists in the mind but the self and the mind are not part of the body but ‘out there’ as part of the social world interacting with the world through streams of consciousness. Consciousness of experience and the mind thus exists not as an inherent aspect of individual identity but ‘always already turned out on to the world through our intentional relationship with the world’ (Langdridge & Hagger-Johnson, 2009: 388). Phenomenology in short promotes mind dualism, which is an anathema to Mead.

Phenomenological / Cultural Interpretive theory of symbolic interactionism

The interpretive/cultural theory model of symbolic interactionism holds particular resonance with phenomenology. To delve a little deeper, phenomenology is largely concerned with the study of ‘experience’ and individual’s perceptions of the world as they see it. Denzin (1989: 10) astutely observed the similarity between phenomenology and the interpretive school of symbolic interactionism. He noted that:

‘The interpretive version of the perspective…attempts to make the worlds of lived experience directly accessible to the reader. Interpretive interactionists endeavor to capture the voices, emotions, and actions of those studied. They focus on those life experiences which radically alter and shape the meanings persons give themselves and their experiences.’

However, a cultural interpretive analysis was rejected primarily because the phenomenology researcher constructs the experiences through the use of the participants’ use of language, which was not the focus of interest within this study. Secondly because phenomenology supports mind dualism which runs against the concept of a multifaceted sense of identity that includes biological as well as social elements of identity.

6.4 Methodology

Interview processes

A series of heuristic interviews was considered be the best approach to understand how individuals’ music preferences were formed and how the course of trajectory of these preferences had altered. I was very interested to explore the background social settings in which music preferences were developed. An ethnographic observation was clearly impractical, so interviews were selected as the best approach to explore how individuals selected and used their music. Inherent within much of qualitative study there is always the risk that I may analyse just anecdotal accounts that simply lead to nowhere (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002; Silverman, 2005). Therefore one of the primary aims of the interviews was to construct an experience out of participants’ accounts and my interpretation of that experience. In essence both parties involved in the process are active in the construction of the interview experience (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002). Thus the data derived from the interviews which would be used as part of my profoundisation model (Langdridge & Hagger-Johnson, 2009) to enlighten and augment my previous quantitative study.

Yet it is important to note that there is one important methodological issue which relates to my earlier reasons for rejecting narrative analysis; the interviews were used and treated as a conduit to individuals’ experiences and not as actively constructed narratives (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002; Silverman, 2005). In other words, through the subtle skills of interaction, questioning, consolidation and verification, I was able to create a position whereby I could interpret the individual’s accounts not as an example of reality or the truth, but simply an interpretation of their personal and social worlds and to interpret the meanings of their objects in relation to his or her social situations within their historical and cultural contexts. These accounts are ultimately their interpretation to my questions placed before them but also mediated between social and personal expectations of interviewer and interviewee. In my opinion, to be invited into the individual’s own personal and social spaces is an absolute privilege. Thus it was

for interview. Yet because the interviews were to be held on a face to face basis, there were several factors which had to be taken into account which may either hinder or aid the elucidation of information.

The two way processes inherent within any interview are neither neutral nor without danger. In essence my questions are part of the process through which their accounts are constructed. As identified in the introduction chapter, inherent biological and social determinants play a crucial role on the flow of conversation. These factors such as gender, age, ethnic background, physical appearance and of course other adjuncts to my identity such as my clothes, watch and shoes (Dittmar, 2012); apply to both me and the interviewee. Yet it is clear that these factors play an unwitting role in steering both question and response. It should also be noted that both question and answer can be fraught with dangers of

miscomprehension and assumptions (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998: Soss, 1996). I tried to pre-empt some of the potential dangers. Such as how do I know that my interpretation of their meaning is the same as theirs? I was aware that to a large number of undergraduates and postgraduates there was an age gap of over twenty years. The socio-cultural and technological context of my adolescence and early adulthood are very different to today. How do know that I have truly understood their accounts? If it is evident to the individual that I am not familiar with their social experiences or music styles is there a danger that the account they provide me as a middle-aged white male may differ from one given to another researcher closer to their own age, historical or cultural background? Is there a possibility that I could I lose any rapport developed so far? Will they become bored, humour me or terminate the interview? To

overcome some of these obstacles, I decided to be as honest as possible with the participants to admit my ignorance. In addition, if it was clearly evident that I was unfamiliar with the use of language or music style, I would allow the individual more time to explain and explore their experiences, to broaden my own horizons. The action taken was not necessarily a transfer of power away from me but a malleable action to aid the development and consolidation of the relationship between me and the participant. As a consequence of these concerns, I made it a mission statement of mine that I would try to clarify every

ambiguity with the participants, even at the expense of stopping the flow of the interview. Validity and reliability were considered paramount to this study especially as I was the sole researcher. Silverman (2005) identifies that these two principles can be more difficult to achieve without suspicions of anecdotalism being raised. For these reasons not only did I try to clarify any ambiguity at the time of interview but in addition, all interviews were recorded, fully transcribed and securely stored on an MP3 player to allow for further clarification without the need to recall the participant.