2.20 Narrative analysis - thinking about research projects

We started class by going over the terms set up in the reading - big stories/small stories; surface stories/deep stories; polished stories/growth stories.  During discussion we also touched on some of the story/language forms that can indicate identity relationships and value systems that the individuals in the conversation may be unaware of.  These include moves to distance the speaker from the material, the constellation of language features that establish subject positioning and agency, and so on.
 
In our discussion we noted some questions you might ask yourself about your choice of story forms - particularly the movement among big stories/polished stories=> small stories/growth stories (listed below).

• what experiences do I tell as big/small stories?
• what kinds of big/small stories do I tell?
• how do I "use" big stories/small stories (for what purpose? in what contexts? regarding what subject material? etc.)
• how do I cast/re-cast the same story when I tell it in different settings/contexts/circumstances?

  In the discussion of big stories, I directed you to the example/discussion of the ESL test, in Chapter 1, and the "parts" of big stories identified by William Labov.  This elements - while not always present-  often form speakers unconscious understanding of what a story is and how it should be presented.  As pointed out in the chapters, big stories generally represent experiences that have been processed, or that fit into cultural stories in ways that make them a good fit for the more or less formulaic requirements of big stories. 

Small stories are more fluid, less formulaic, and often are associated with material the speaker has not yet packaged into a clear understanding.  The "small story" elements of Lorena's retellings of The ESL Test => in Friends, create an example of a sort of small story/big story hybrid.  Lorena tells many of her experiences as big stories - they are a form she resorts to regularly in her talk.  At the same time, in telling/re-telling the ESL test = where each version (which has big story features) is re-cast in light of conversational input from Sally - the story as a whole unfolds as a kind of small story that evolves and takes on new meanings through the back and forth between the speakers.

I did not spend much time on small stories - and for some of you they may be important components in the thinking that takes place in your interview.  As we have been noticing in the readings from the Lock & Strong collection, the interactions between speakers are places where meanings are realized. 

Additional references for small story analysis are listed below.

 

Bamberg, Michael. (2004). Talk, small stories, and adolescent identities. Human Development, 47, 333-353.

 

Bamberg, Michael & Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative identity analysis. Stories & Talk, 28(3), 377-396.

 

Bamberg, Michael,  De Fina, Anna, and Schiffrin, Deborah, (Eds). (2007). Selves and Identities in Narrative and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins

 

De Fina, Anna. (2008). Who tells which story and why? Micro and macro contexts in narrative.  Text & Talk,  28(3), 421-442. 

 

The articles are available through the Kean Database, and I have Bamberg, De Fina, and Schfiffrin, if you'd like to take a look at it.

 

Possible projects:  The second part of class was devoted to discussion of what you are noticing in your transcripts along with discussion of what you might want to do for a research project where you can work with/develop/dig into the ideas we have been opening up in class. Ideas include:

 

1. Using a narrative analysis of interview talk to identify and classify the kinds of mundane writing traumas that students bring to the classroom

 

Variant of 1. Noting the kinds of stories (related to writing) that are told as big stories v small stories = as a way to explore what kinds of experiences are "more processed" with respect to writing (this analysis could provide insight into experiences that students are left "holding" with no real way to process )

 

2. Using narrative analysis of the interview + reflective analysis of your experience to explore how interviewing opens up new ways for writers to relate to their writing (as opposed to writing literacy narratives)

 

Variant of 2. Looking at how/whether the talk in the interview used/paralleled any of the models for talk set forward in the essays in Lock & Strong =  provided ways for participants to gain a more conscious understanding of what is going on in their writing

 

3. Exploring how teaching practices soothe or make more difficult the kinds of writing issues (mundane traumas) set forward in the interviews

 

4. Exploring how the nature of writing connects to the kinds of mundane traumas documented in the transcripts

 

We will keep working on this list - but I am starting to feel like we have a start.

 

For next week:

Read: McAdams, 15-33 in Holstein & Gubrium; read Ramirez & Chandler (posted to the right)

Blog: whatever you are writing so far

 

Do some more definite thinking about what you will do for a project.  In some ways - the two readings are examples of different kinds of projects - using story analysis as a basis for an argument about how the world works (creating a theoretical story). 

 

Class will begin with a workshop on where you are with your analysis of your interviews.  We will also decide where/how to make the transcripts available as a shared database - so email me a copy of the complete transcript prior to class, and I can post them wherever we decide while you are working.

 

Great class tonight and see you next week!  We are definitely into the fun part of this course.