Sample  analysis

Reissman  (2008)  offers  an  analytic  typology  that  I  used  to  carry  out  my  narrative   analysis.  She  maintains  that,  “what  makes  such  diverse  texts  ‘narrative’  is  its  sequence   and  its  consequence:  events  are  selected,  organized,  connected,  and  evaluated  as   meaningful  for  a  particular  audience”  (p.  1).  In  the  performative  typology  of  narrative   analysis,  the  influence  of  the  investigator,  setting,  and  social  circumstances  is  taken  into   account  with  regards  to  the  production  and  the  interpretation  of  the  narrative  

(Reissman,  2008).  Therefore,  the  interpretation  is  informed  by  ‘who’  the  narrative  may   be  directed  towards  and  ‘why’,  or  for  what  purpose,  the  utterance  is  shared.  I  recognize   that  there  is  always  a  certain  level  of  bias  in  the  researcher/researched  relationship,  but   this  research  examines  how  these  biases  influence  the  narratives  under  investigation.  

Attention  to  the  thematic  content  and  structure  of  the  narrative  are  completely   abandoned,  and  select  aspects  of  thematic  and  structural  analysis  are  employed   strategically  in  order  to  add  dimension  to  the  performative  analysis  (Reissman,  2008).  

In  applying  Reissman’s  performative  typology  of  narrative  analysis,  my  

procedure  for  data  analysis  involved  multiple  layers  of  listening.  I  developed  an  analytic   framework  and  process  to  work  through  the  stories  that  I  gathered  in  the  field.  I  devised   a  series  of  questions  that  pulled  me  through  the  data  in  a  systematic  way  but  still  

allowed  for  the  data  to  “glow”  (MacLure,  2013).  When  the  data  “glows”,  there  is  an   emergence  of  sense  or  as  MacLure  (2013)  goes  on  to  explain,  “the  glow  seems  to  invoke   something  abstract  or  intangible  that  exceeds  propositional  meaning,  but  also  has  a   decidedly  embodied  aspect”  (p.  661).  As  I  pulled  myself  through  a  sound  research   process,  which  I  outline  below,  I  simultaneously  reminded  myself  of  instances  where  

thematizing  the  data  to  an  extent  may  close  off  further  possibility  for  understanding  the   data,  especially  when  considering  the  audience  reading  my  research.  Certain  data   demands  or  defies  the  constraints  of  significations  and  the  research  must  thus  expose   the  limits  of  analysis,  rationality,  and  explanations  (MacLure,  2013).  Thus,  

interpretations  and  understanding  are  left  open  to  the  reader  to  absorb  and  interpret.  

 In  the  first  and  second  listenings  of  the  data,  I  investigate  the  narratives  of  place   that  are  being  told  in  the  transcription  of  semi-­‐structured  interviews  and  thick  

descriptive,  observational  field  notes,  along  with  the  visual  mappings  of  the  Lynden   docents  and  Washington  Park  Field  School  Students.  I  begin  by  asking  the  question:  

what  are  the  narratives  of  place?  By  uncovering  the  prevailing  narratives  of  place,  I   could  begin  to  understand  the  ways  in  which  different  types  of  place-­‐based  knowledge   are  constructed  at  each  site  and  for  what  reasons  the  knowledge  is  being  privileged.  

Fully  understanding  the  narratives  of  place  means  recognizing  who  creates  the   knowledge  and  how  their  position  of  power  impacted  the  construction  of  their  place-­‐

based  knowledge.  The  narratives  of  place  began  with  the  physicality  of  experiencing   place  first  hand  through  community  as  people,  as  art,  as  artifact,  as  environment.  

I  examined  each  textual  story  through  a  myriad  of  a  priori  and  emergent  themes   for  narratives  of  place.  I  searched  for  key  narratives  of  place  as  presented  and  offered   by  the  speaker.  By  analyzing  narratives  of  place  with  a  thematic  lens,  a  typology  is   constructed  where  the  content  of  the  narrative  is  examined  and  cases  act  as  exemplars   to  illustrate  a  thematic  extension  on  the  existing  theories  of  place.  The  narratives  of   place  that  emerged  from  my  research  included  some  from  a  priori  categories  

determined  as  part  of  the  case  study  proposal.  These  narratives  of  place  included  stories   centered  around  the  physicality  of  place,  places  of  memory,  the  importance  of  place,   showing  place  in  new  ways,  hidden  curriculum  of  place-­‐based  learning,  resisting  place,   reciprocity  of  place,  spatial  concepts  of  place  (setting,  tempo,  movement,  progression   sequence,  ambience,  scale,  territory,  personalization  and  privacy),  access  to  place,   place-­‐based  learning  as  planned  or  lived.  There  were  also  a  number  of  emergent   narratives  of  place  discovered  while  gathering  data,  for  example:  place  as  relational,   unfamiliarity  of  place,  familiarity  of  place,  ephemerality  of  place,  place  as  safe,  place  as   collaboration,  intimacy  of  place,  and  juxtaposition  of  place.  By  valuing  emergent  

narratives  of  place,  I  recognize  that  the  speakers  have  their  own,  personal  perspectives   on  place  and  understandings  of  place.  These  were  a  set  of  narratives  not  conceived  at   the  onset  of  the  case  study  proposal  or  perceived  initially  by  the  researcher.    

The  second  listening  involved  looking  carefully  at  the  speakers’  narratives  of   place  as  representations  within  the  visual  mappings  of  experience.  In  the  case  study,   experience  mapping  is  a  means  of  reflection  and  visually  representing  the  speaker’s   experience.  Experience  mapping  may  present  a  possibility  to  center  one’s  attention   towards  the  built  environment,  the  natural  environment,  and  the  social  environment   while  amplifying  one’s  understandings  towards  the  things  that  happen  in  the  place.  It   includes  multi-­‐sensory  traces  of  activity  and  behaviors  that  have  occurred  within  the   place  as  a  whole.  Experience  mapping  opened  up  new  possibilities  for  learning  about   the  variety  of  features  of  a  landscape  of  interest  and  value  to  the  speaker  and  also  to   different  people  related  to  the  speaker.  I  analyzed  the  experience  mappings,  as  visual  

narratives  with  in  the  production  of  the  image  (my  own  observations  and  utterances  of   the  speaker)  along  with  the  image  itself.  I  analyzed,  back  and  forth,  between  textual  and   visual  narratives  of  place,  as  in  many  instances  the  two  were  closely  intertwined.  For   example,  in  the  field  school,  one  student  describes  a  personal  narrative  of  place:  

Some  people  were  hanging  their  clothes  out  to  dry.  I  thought  that  was  pretty   cool  because  a  lot  of  neighborhoods  they  wouldn’t  appreciate  people  doing  that.  

But  we  have  to  take  into  consideration  like  that  there  are  a  lot  of  different   cultural  norms…  I  can  just  tell  their  sense  of  being  within  their  space.  They  didn't   feel  like  it  was  someplace  foreign  to  them;  it  seems  like  even  if  they  hadn't  lived   there  for  too  long  it  seems  like  they  shaped  those  areas  to  make  them  it  their   own.  So  like  something  they  would  have  been  more  familiar  within  at  home  like   whether  it’s  large  families  living  in  one  space  or  just  like  just  how  they  kept  their   yards  and  things  like  that-­‐-­‐  just  different  ways  that  they  used  to  make  their  space   theirs  (personal  communication,  June  18,  2014).  

The  student’s  narrative  of  place  begins  as  one  of  witnessing  the  physicality  and   materiality  of  place  in  surprising  ways  through  the  immigrants’  symbolic  actions  of   hanging  clothes  to  dry  in  their  yard.  She  goes  on  to  explain  why  this  everyday  action   may  be  slightly  out  of  the  ordinary  and  significant.  Place  becomes  a  borderland  that  is   envisioned  in  new  ways.    

The  third  layer  of  analysis  focused  on  how  the  narrative  of  place  expands  or   limits  the  learning  and  teaching  that  is  happening  within  place-­‐based  education.  This   layer  of  analysis  moves  from  an  emphasis  in  the  materiality  of  place  to  the  discursive  

qualities  of  place.  I  call  these  narratives  of  place-­‐based  learning.  Some  of  the  themes   included:  participants  openness  to  change,  ability  to  contextualize  the  learning,   sensational  learning,  embodying  a  sense  of  active  citizenship,  real-­‐world  application,   student-­‐centered  methods,  collaboration  between  community  members,  drawing  upon   interdisciplinary  experiences,  multiplicity  in  narratives  of  place,  privileging  local  ways  of   knowing,  and  empathetic  awareness  for  surroundings  (including  people,  environment,   situation,  etc.).  Encountering  these  themes  and  uncovering  the  narratives  of  place-­‐

based  learning,  allows  my  research  to  unfold  in  the  area  of  understanding  how  may   place-­‐based  pedagogical  practices  propel  quality,  learning  experiences.  The  student’s   narrative  of  place  goes  on,  “I  got  to  know  these  people,  their  lives,  and  what  affected   them,  the  prospects  they  wanted  to  see  within  their  neighborhood,  and  the  values  they   held  important  within  the  area”  (personal  communication,  July  10,  2014).  Her  narrative   of  learning  emphasizes  a  growing  awareness  and  possibly  empathy  for  her  

surroundings.  She  embraces  local  ways  of  knowing,  local  themes,  and  local  contexts  and   is  able  to  contextualize  local  knowledge  of  residents  within  the  significance  of  her   research  and  actions.  She  honors  her  lived  experience  of  the  field  school  as  getting  to   know  the  people  of  Washington  Park  a  deep  and  meaningful  experience.  

Thus  far,  the  first  three  layers  of  analysis  interrogate  the  “what”  and  “how”  of   the  story.  As  the  analysis  progresses,  the  fourth  layer  considers  the  “why”  of  the   narratives.  Why  do  narratives  of  place  and  learning,  empower  or  repress  the  speaker,   the  institution,  and/or  the  learners/residents?  This  layer  takes  into  account  the  role  of   the  audience  and  incorporates  a  perspective  on  storytelling  to  underscore  the  

importance  of  analytically  including  not  only  the  narrator’s  telling  of  a  story,  but  also  the   role  of  the  intended  audience  in  storytelling,  such  as  who  is  mentioned  and/or  absent  in   narratives  and  their  role  in  the  story  (Sutherland,  2013).  By  searching  the  narratives  of   place  and  learning  for  the  undercurrents  how  the  stories  live  on  to  impact  lives  and   voices  of  the  narrator  and  their  audience,  I  was  able  to  further  answer  my  research   questions  of  what  impact  may  the  critical  place-­‐based  learning  of  the  two  sites  have  on   greater  social  issues  of  the  local  communities.  I  searched  for  stories  that  demonstrated   performances  of  justification,  refusal,  ownership,  democratic  participation,  self  

awareness,  taking  opportunities  to  enhance  personal  growth,  goal-­‐setting,   confidence/competence,  prior  experience,  seeking  change,  impact/influence,  

encouragement,  questioning  of  opinions  as  indicators  of  empowerment  or  oppression   for  the  speaker,  institution,  or  learner/resident.  These  performance  types  were  

emergent  within  the  analysis.  Towards  the  end  of  this  particular  narrative,  the  student   denotes:  

I  feel  that  really  helped  me  to  become  more  a  part  of  the  neighborhood  in  a  way   that  I  can  see  what  values  or  concerns  are  important  [to  the  residents]…I  just   saw  I  was  familiar  with  the  large  population  of  immigrants  to  the  area.  I  have   seen  them  driving  when  I  was  little  and  stuff  like  that,  but  I  had  never  come   across  them.  And  now  speaking  to  them  and  even  though  they  can’t  understand   my  language  or  I  can’t  understand  their  language,  we  got  to  know  each  other   (personal  communication,  July  10,  2014).  

Her  story  empowers  herself  as  speaker.  She  acknowledges  and  juxtaposes  her  prior   experiences  to  current  ones.  Long  ago,  she  saw  the  Washington  Park  immigrant   populations  as  foreign,  these  sightings  yielded  shallow  and  long-­‐lasting  assumptions.  

Now,  she  compares  the  past  to  the  self-­‐awareness  that  she  found  through  the  process   of  the  field  school  and  face-­‐to-­‐face  interactions  with  the  immigrant  populations  of  the   residents.  Though  her  narrative  is  framed  with  a  romantic  gesture  (indeed  it  is  hard  to   communicate  without  being  able  to  physically  understand  one  another),  her  narrative   becomes  a  metaphor  for  disposition  that  remains  open  to  possibility.  Narrative  analysis   pulled  me  through  the  data  in  such  a  way,  that  I  had  an  opportunity  to  search  for   meaning  participants  were  conveying  in  connection  to  place,  education,  social  

constructions,  and  in  relation  to  my  own  perceptions  on  place.  After  working  through  all   layers  of  my  narrative  analysis  procedure,  I  was  able  to  draw  conclusions  on  how  and   why  arts-­‐based  placemaking  came  into  being  and  became  important  from  the  emplaced   community-­‐based  art  education  at  the  two  sites  of  the  Lynden  Sculpture  Garden  and   Buildings-­‐Landscapes-­‐Field  School.