The way of researching of the sample narrative study was quite familiar to me, but the method was too simple. The author just observed and interviewed the informant without any sort of prescription. What I expected on narrative study, although it's about a person's experience, is that there might be certain action by researcher based on the participant's situation, so the individual's reaction could be observed. However, in this study, researcher presented on the continuum of the individual's life and just observed, then interpreted.
Therefore, the focus of narrative study is a single individual, and evoking the presence of the author in the study, interpreting what the author observed.
Shouldn't there be any intervention by the researcher to see the reaction?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
hmmm . . . I do not think that there has to be an intervention to count as research, but I do agree with you that with narrative research and its cousins (autoethnography, and scholarly personal narrative -- which I call eSPN research), there can be a negative feeling from people trained to do research with wholly different ways of measuring the "rigor" of the study. Sort of like your perception of "what's the point of that?"
ReplyDeletelet's discuss with the students in class!
cheers,
eric
Haha.. now I figured out the value of narrative research. *^^*
ReplyDeleteIt was "fair".