Introduction

Chapter One: Key Paradigms

Intro
Recentdebatesinnarrativeresearchhaveunpickedthe
relativemeritsofstudyingnarrativeasatextinitsownright,
orconsideringitaspartofthewidercontextofaperson's
life.Theopposingfacetsofthisdebatehavebeenreferredto

BigandSmall/2
as'big'and'small'storiesapproaches,whichrelatetoother
approachessuchasthelifehistoryapproach,eventsbased
narrativeresearch,ortomoreexperiencebasedapproaches.The
smallapproachhasbeendescribedasrepresentingthe'second
wave'(GeorkapoulouXXX:XX)ofnarrativeresearchbecauseof
significantshiftsinfocusofmethodologicalandanalytical
approaches,awayfromtheearliereventbasedapproaches.While
theseperspectivessetofffromdifferingpositionsaboutwhat
kindofwordscanbeconsideredasnarrativesthemoreimportant
differencesseemtorevolvearoundphilosophicalapproachesto
therolewhichnarrativeplaysineverydaylife.Whiletherecan
bestarkcontrastsintheunderlyingphilosophicalperspectives
attachedtomethodologicalapproaches,themethodsusedtogather
narrativesdonotnecessarilyimplyaparticularpointofview
regardingwhatanarrativeis,orwhatrelationtolived
experiencethatnarrativemighthave.

InthissectionIwilloutlinethetwoendsofthespectrum
ofnarrativeresearchandconsiderthestrengthsofeach
perspectiveinrelationtothemethodsused,therolewhich
storiesareunderstoodinrelationtolivedexperience,andtheir
viewofthewaynarrativesareproduced;individuallyorco
constructed.

BigandSmall/3

Big/ life story/ event/ individual

Bigstoriesarevariouslyreferredtoas'canonical
narratives'(Bruner1990,2002),'prototypes'(Bambergand
Georgakopooulou2008:XX)'scriptsandstorylinesthatare"out
there"'(Goodson2013),andassuchthereissomescopeasto
whatabigstorymightbe.Influentialinthisareaisthework
ofJeromeBruner,whoarguesthat'canonicalnarratives'(2004:
694),foundinmyths,folklorebiblicalstoriesandworksof
literature(2004:698),providetheframeworkforhowpeople
understandtheirownlives.

Thisapproachhasanumberofthingsincommonwiththelife
historyapproach,inwhichresearchersoftenelicitnarratives
whichattempttoencompassawholelife.Likethelifehistory
approach,bigstoryresearchtendstoputtheprimaryfocuson
theeventswhichtakeplaceinthenarrative,ratherthantothe
experiences,emotionsandfeelingsofthenarrator.Bigstory
researchtendstounderstandwhatanarrativeisasthewords
whicharefocussedonthetellingofastory,andwouldtherefore
omitutteranceswhichseemofftopic,digressions,andother
informationwhichisnotcategorisedaspartofthemainstory.

BigandSmall/4
Thisapproachalsofavoursachronologicalviewofstoriesas
startingatapointinthepastandprogressingtothepresent.
Mostresearchfollowingthisparadigmsupposesthatthenarrator
ofthestoryisthesameasthepersontellingthestory,and
thatthestoryrelatestoeventswhichactuallyhappened,thatis
anarrativeisnotconsideredtobeaboutahypotheticalevent,
oranalternatepast.Bigstorieshavebeendefinedasthose
'derivedfrominterviews,clinicalencounters,autobiographical
writing,andothersuchinterrogativevenues,thatentaila
significantmeasureofreflectiononeitheraneventoran
experience,asignificantportionofalife,orthewholeofit'
(Freeman2006:2).Theyareoftenelicitedinaninterviewtype
situation,andlateranalysedintermsofthestructureandform
ofthestory.Generally,bigstoryresearchadoptstheviewthat
narrativesareindividuallyproduced,basedonthecognitiveview
thatnarrativesareanexpressionofaninnerself.

Inthistradition,Brunerhasarguedthat'canonical
narratives'formthebasisofthestorieswhichindividualstell.
Thereareunderlyingtypologiesinthisviewwhichareusedas
templatesforpersonalstories.Thisideaisnotnewandinfact
stemsfromtheanalysismadebyVladimirProppin1928ofthe
basicplotlinesinRussianfolktales.Thisideahasbeenrevived

BigandSmall/5
severaltimeswithdifferentversionsofhowmanybasicplots
thereare;Elsbree(1982)hasitatfive;Booker(2004)argues
thatthereareseven.Bruner'sownapproachiscloselyaligned
withAmelieRorty's(XXXX)analysisofthetypesofnarrative
liveswhichcanbeledbythepeopleinthenarratives.This
emphasisonstructure,form,identifyingandclassifying
narrativesintotypesistypicalofthe'bigstory'approach.
Goodsonhasidentifiedfourtypesofnarrator,eachofwhomcould
narrateanarchetypalstoryintheirownway(2011).Bruner
categorisesthelifestoriesoffourfamilymembersandposits
that'ifCarl'sisaBildungsroman,Debby'sisanexistential
novel'(XXXX:707),thusrelatingthepersonalnarrativestomuch
broadernarrativetypes.Asaresulttheanalysisisfocussedon
thebroadersocialnarrativesandhowpersonalnarrativesfit
intothistypology.

Small/ experience
Akintobigstoryresearchisworkwhichfocuseslesson
eventsandmoreonpersonalexperience.Thishasbeenheavily
influencedbyLabovandWaletsky'smodelforanalysingexperience
narratives.Inthismethod,Labovdefinedanarrativeas'a

BigandSmall/6
sequenceoftwoclauseswhicharetemporallyordered'(Labov
1972:360),sonarrativescouldbeextractedfromlonger
sequencesofspontaneous,unsolicitedspeech.Therelevant
clausesarelatercategorisedaccordingtoLabov'sclassification
system.Whilethismethodoffersresearchersconcretewaysof
categorisingandanalysingnarratives,providesasystematicway
ofanalysingthenarratorsperspectiveindetailand,becauseof
thesystematicapproach,offersawayofcomparinganalyses,it
hassomeseriouslimitations.Narrativeisstilllimitedto
conventionalideasaboutwhatstoriesare,withthefocusonthe
narratorwhotellsthestoryasthenarratorinthestoryandit
doesnottakeintoaccountfutureorhypotheticalevents.Inthe
Labovianapproachthereislittlescopeforproblematising
relationshipsbetweeneventsoccurringinnarrativesorbetween
thecontextandthenarration(Patterson2008).Smallstory
researchisinterestedinformandstructureofnarrativesonly
iftheycontributetoanunderstandingofhowapersonis
constructinganarrativeandisgearedtounderstandinghow
peopleconstructidentitythroughnarrative.

Despitethemoveawayfromeventfocussednarrativesin
smallstoryresearch,tellingapersonalnarrativeoften
unavoidablyinvolvestalkingaboutevents.Withinthesmallstory

BigandSmall/7
perspective,theseeventsareviewedassensemakingaspectsof
thenarrativeandcanbeanalysed,therefore,throughthethemes
theyrepresentandtheworldviewtheysetup.Inaninterview
whichAnnPhoenixcarriedoutwithClare,awhitewomanwhohas
twochildrenwithablackman,theintervieweesetsherselfupas
amoralagentbydescribinghowshedefendedaschoolfriend
againstracisminherchildhood(2008:77).Clare'snarrativeis
structuredaroundanevent,butthisdoesnotmakeit
uninterestingtosmallstory,orexperiencedbasedresearchers;
whatisofinterestisthattheeventisrecountedanalytically
bythenarrator,andinterpretedasaninterpretationofthe
event,ratherthananobjectivedescriptionofthe'truth'.This
typeofresearchisgenerallymoreinclusiveaboutwhatmaterials
canbecountedasnarrative,andmightincludeothermediasuch
asdiariesorshoppinglists,objectsandactions.

big & small

Despitebeingseeminglyatquitedistinctendsofthe
spectrumintermsofwhateachperspectivewouldconsidera
narrativetobe,andtheanalyticprocesseswhichtheywoulduse
theyarestrikinglysimilarintheviewoftheselfwhichbelies
them.AsCorinneSquirehaspointedout,eventbasedand

BigandSmall/8
experiencedbasedresearcherstendtotaketheviewthat
narrativesareexpressionsofinternal,individualstates,
phenomena,feelingsandthoughts(2008:5),andIwouldsuggest
thatbigandsmallstoryresearch,alignedcloselywithevent
andexperiencedbasedresearch,adoptthesameperspective.

Inthe'big'storytraditionotherpeople'sstoriesare
comprehensiblebecauseofashared'deepstructure'(BrunerXXXX:
699)withoutwhich'tellersandlistenerswillsurelybe
alienatedbyafailuretograspwhattheotherissayingorwhat
hethinkstheotherishearing'(699).Thiscognitiveviewleaves
littleroomforconsideringhowsocialconventionsaboutwhatit
isorisnotappropriatetosaymightinfluencehowanarrative
istold(Phoenix2008:74)orthewaysthatnarrativeis
connectedtohistoricalperiods,socialpositionoftheteller
andthehearer.

OnereasonthatBrunerarguesforasharedcognitive
understandingofbasicnarrativeplotsisthat,hesays,'people
anywhere'cangiveintelligibleaccountsoftheirlives.Other
thinkersinthe'bigstories'traditionhavetakenamoresocial
approachandconnectedlifestoriestohistoricalandcultural
conceptionsofselfhood.Forexample,Goodson(xxxx)arguesthat

BigandSmall/9
narrativeislinkedtoideasaboutselfhood.However,his
assertionthatinplaceswhereeverydaysurvivalismore
difficultthanindevelopedcountriesthereis'unlikelytobe
thetimeortheinclinationforthedevelopmentoflifestories'
(Goodson2013:25),isdifficulttotake.Giventhelargeamount
ofanthropologicalworkwhichshowstheimportanceof
storytellinginnonWesternsocieties,Iamnotinclinedtoshare
thisview.Amorecompellingideaisthatwhereideasofselfhood
differfromWesternviewsofanindividuatedself[Iamnot
suggestingthattheWestern'self'isinteriorandindividual
here,onlythatthisideadoesexistinWesternthought],there
maybedifferingunderstandingsaboutwhatconstitutesa
narrative.AsGoodsonremindsus,muchnarrativeanalysiscomes
fromwesternacademictraditionsandisthereforeverymuch
situatedwithinwesternparameters.

Ifstorytellingispartofourcognitivemakeup,anditis,
accordingtosomewhatmakesushuman,wearecompelledtotell
stories.Butthisisperhapsnotsostraightforward;not
everyoneisagoodstorytellerandnoteveryonereadilyreflects
ontheirlives(GoodsonXXXX:).

BigandSmall/10
Animportantcaveathereisthatthereisoverlapbetween
theseboundaries.Indeed,thedivisionsbetweeninternal
individualselfandsociallyproducedself,betweeneventand
experiencearealsoquestionable.Thus,whileIdonotwishto
suggestthatresearchersworkingwithinanyofthesebroad
paradigmscouldnotincorporateaspectsfromtheother
perspectives,thecategorieshereareusefulwhenoutliningwhat
isanimmenseandsomewhatunwieldyfield.

Social
Athirdperspectiveonnarrativeresearch,informedby
feministreflexiveresearchontheperformativenatureofour
lives,isthatwhichviewsnarrativeascoconstructed.This
perspectiveislessconcernedwithwhethernarrativesare
elicitedininterviewsorgatheredfromsnippetsofemail
conversations,textmessagesandconversationsoverthedinner
table,andmuchmorewithhowthesenarrativesfunctionandwhat
socialpatternstheyreveal.Withinthisparticularparadigm
thereseemstobemorescopeforaconsiderationofhow
narrativesareproducedbyboththetellerandtheaudience,for

BigandSmall/11
thinkingthroughhowlargernarrativesandsocialpatternsof
storytellingmightbemobilisedinpersonalnarratives,andfor
understandinghowpersonalnarrativesmightworktochallengeor
resist'canonicalnarratives'.

Ifstoriesarenotjustanexternalisationofaninnerstate
orthoughtprocess,itfollowsthattheyare,atleastinpart,
assembledfromfragmentsfromoureverydaylives.Thesefragments
couldcomefromotherstorieswhichweareexposedtothrough
media,gossipandotherpeople'spersonalstories,forexample.
Inthissense,typologiesofstoriesmightfilterintopeople's
ownpersonalaccountsoftheirlives.Plummerarguesthatthe
processofconsumingandproducingstoriesiscyclicalandthat
peopleneedtoconsumestoriesinordertotelltheirown(1995:
43).ForPlummer,thestorieswhichpeopletellabouttheirlives
aretosomeextentconstitutedbyandconstitutiveof'realand
imaginedsocialworlds'(1995:45).Assuch,theconsumerofa
storyisalwaystellingfromwhathecalls'preestablished'
(1995:43)experiences,whichIinterpretasunderstandingthe
hearerassituated,embodied,temporalandparticular,which
presumablyalsoappliestothetellerofastory.

BigandSmall/12
Justaspeoplesituatedintime,space,localandwider
culturalcontexts,sothestoriestheyconsumeandtellaretoo.
Plummeraskswhyitwassignificantlylesscommontohear
particulartypesofstory,suchascomingoutstoriesbeforethe
midtwentiethcentury.Whilelegalrestrictions,socialstigma,
fearofreprisalparticularlyinthecaseofrapestoriesare
importantreasonswhyitwasdifficulttogetthesesensitive
storiesheard,hearguesthatthespaceforthesekindsof
narrativeshadtobecreated.Hearguesthatthereasonthese
storiescouldbetoldattheendofthetwentiethcenturyis
becausetheywerebeingtoldbyordinarypeople,ratherthanthe
legal,medicalandprofessional'experts'whohadforsolong
giventheiraccountsofthese'others'.Thus,thesestories,told
from'below'challengedtheofficialstories.Thesechallenges
inturnreshapedsocietalunderstandingsofsexualitiesand
openedupaspaceforstoriestobetoldinnewways(1995:60
62).

Wemightask,thenhowsocialnarrativesoflovemight
intersectwithpersonalstoriesoflove.Illouz(1998)tellsus
thatthemediashapeourprivateactsoflovetosuchanextent
thatithasbecomeaclich,citingLaRouchefoucaldwho,inthe
seventeenthcenturyhaditthat'manypeoplewouldnothave

BigandSmall/13
falleninloveintheyhadnotheardofit'(inIllouz,p.162).
AndPasserini(XXXX)hasarguedthatthediscoursesabouta
unitedEuropeandromanticlovewhichcirculatedinpostwar
Europeplantedtheideaofloveascivilisedinordinarypeople's
minds.
TherecentstudymadebyClaireLanghamershowshowideas
aboutloveandmarriagechangedinEnglandpostWorldWarII,as
lovewaspositionedasabasisforselfhood(xxx:278).Choice,
selfdiscoveryandfulfilmentbecamecentraltomodernselfhood,
indicatedbyriseof'psy'disciplinesandthepopularityof
psychologicalmodelswhichcirculatedwithinmassculture.The
languageofinteriorityreplaceddiscoursesofselfcontroland
dutywhichhadbeenprevalentbefore1950(XXX:278),withlove
providing'awayofbindingmodernselfactualizingindividuals
tothesocialcontractofmarriage'(XXXX:278)whichhadnot
beennecessaryinprewarBritain.

Lovewas,inpostwarEngland,theonlyvalidreasonfor
marrying(Langhamerxxxx:279),andprovidedavalidreasonfor
separating.Itwasthereforedangerousandunsettlingto
authoritiesandinstitutionswhichhadaninterestinpromoting
marriage.

Thediscursivechangesregardinglovebrought

aboutaneedforsincerityandemotionalintimacywas

BigandSmall/14
interrogatedfor'authenticity'(xxxx:279),justasemotional
actorswereinterrogatedfortheirsincerity.Loveinpostwar
Britainwas,itseems,reconfigured.Itdidnothappenin
isolation,however,andtherisingeconomicstabilityinBritain
atthattimecreatedconditionswhichallowedmarriagetobemore
thanjustpragmatic;itwasnowanarenaforselfrealization.
Thesenewpracticesassociatedwiththedisplayoflovedidnot
spreadevenlypartlybecauseofinequalitiesinthepostwar
society,andalsobecauseoftheideasordinarypeople
entertainedaboutwhotheywantedtobe.Despiteshiftsinhow
lovewasunderstood,noteveryonecouldnorwantedtobepartof
it.Langhamer'ssocialhistoryprovidesacompellingargument
that,forordinarypeople,themeaningofloveshiftedfrom
takingcareofalifelongpartnerinthefirstpartofthe
twentiethcentury,tounderstandingsomeoneandexpectingthe
sameoftheminthelatterpart(2923).

Itisimportanttorememberthattypologiesareonlythat
and'donojusticeatalltocomplexity'(Plummer1995:56),yet
lookingthroughamacrolensallowswidersocialperspectivesto
bebroughtintofocuswithmicro,personalperspectives.
Researchersshouldbecautiousaboutgroupingstoriestogether
tooreadilythough,aswhiletheymaybesimilarintermsofform

BigandSmall/15
andstructure,thecontentmaybesufficientlydifferentfortwo
storiesofthesametypetobeatodds.Anexamplehere,taken
fromPlummer(1995)clarifiesthatstoriesofchange,forexample
mightbeaboutpersonalchangeortheycouldbeaboutsocietal
change.Justhowusefulitmightbetogroupsuchexamples
togetherwoulddependontheresearchbeingundertaken,butjust
astheseGrandNarrativescouldbeusefulfortheresearcherto
gettogripswiththedata,theycouldjustaseasilymislead.
Anotherwordofcautionagainsttooquicklycooptingtypesof
storylinetoanalysepersonalstoriescomesfromLorimer(2003:
XX)whowarnsagainst'scalingup',whichwhileitcanbehelpful
forshiftingbetween'institutionalandintimate'scalesof
enquiry,notallpersonalstoriesshouldbethoughtofasyet
anotherexampleofthesame'masternarrative'.Todothiswould
betomissoutonthenuance,theparticularandthesituatedness
ofpeople'sstories.Ratherthancategorising,thesmallstory
approachenableadeeperunderstandingofembodied,specific
experience.

Lovemigrationnarratives,likeothernarratives,needtobe
consideredwithinthelocalcontextwhichtheyareproduced,but
alsowithinthewidersocialcontext.Largersocialforcesmight
provideparametersaroundwhatitisacceptabletosay,andhow

BigandSmall/16
tosayit.Narratorswhoarechallengingsociallyacceptable
constraintsmightthereforenarrateexperiencesoreventswhich
seemshocking,ortellstoriesinunconventionalways;orthey
mightresisttellingastoryaltogether.Whenconsidering
narrativesoflovemigration,disentanglingeventsfrom
experiencewillnotbestraightforwardorevenpossibleinmany
cases.Fallinginlovecouldbeseenbysomeasanevent,by
othersasaseriesofeventssuchasfirstdates,stayingover,
movingintogetherandmightnothaveadefinitivebeginningor
end.Equally,migrationcouldbeasingleeventforsome,it
mightinvolveplanning,travel,resettlingforothersormaybe
anongoingexperienceforyetothers.

Georkapoulou XXX: XX
GeorkapoulouXXX:XX
Bruner1990,2002
BambergandGeorgakopooulou2008:xx
Goodson2013
JeromeBruner2004:694
Freeman2006:2

BigandSmall/17
VladimirProppin1928
Elsbree(1982
Booker(2004)
AmelieRorty(XXXX)
LabovandWaletsky's(XXXX)
Labov1972
AnnPhoenix2008
CorinneSquire2008
Plummer1995
Illouz1998
Passerini
Langhamer

Chapter Two: Narrative Worlds

Intro

BigandSmall/18
Thekeypointinthissectionistoexploretheideathatif
narrativesareconstructed,then(1)whatisanarrative?and(2)
whatistherelationshipbetweenthestoryandaperson'slife?

Whatisanarrative?
Perhapsthemostdebatedquestioniswhetheranarrativeis
awayofrepresentingourlives,orwhetheritisessentiallyhow
weliveourlives.Thefirstpositionsuggeststhatthereissome
formofrawexistence,which,unprocessedformsthe'stuff'of
ourlives,whichwethendescribeandtalkabout.Thenarrative
inthissenseisreferential;itpointstosomethingbeyondthe
narrative,andthenarrativeisawindowontothatworld.Inthis
view,the'raw'experienceisformlesswithoutanystructureor
plot.Prenarrativeexperiencewouldconsistof'isolated
actions,imagesandsensationswhicharethen'cooked'andlaced
inmemoryinmeaningfultemporalsequences?'(p201Reissman&
Salmonlookingback).

Narrativisinglifehasbeencreditedwithcreatingtheidea
ofthesingle,unifiedsubject.Thislineofthoughtwasput
forwardbyRicoeur(1991)whohasarguedthatemphasison
cohesivenarrativeshascreatedtheWesternideaofasingle
unifiedsubject.ForRicoeur,lifeisaseriesofelements,which

BigandSmall/19
aremultipleandheterogeneous(1991:2021).Theactof
'emplotment',orputtingtheelementsoflifeintoastory,
servestobringthesedisparateelementstogetheranditisthe
plotwhich'servestomakeonestoryoutofthemultiple
incidentsor,ifyouprefer,transformsthemanyincidentsinto
onestory'(1991:21).Ricoeurarguesthatnarrativeisa'second
orderdiscoursewhichisalwaysprecededbyanarrative
understanding'(1991:24),suggestingthatthereissomething
whichexistsbeforenarrative,aprenarrativeexpereince.In
thislineofargumenttheremustbeagapbetweennarrativeand
lifebecause'lifeislivedand[...]storiesaretold'(1991:
32),adistancewhichisovercometosomeextentbyemplotting
ourlivesinstorieswhichwe'havereceivedfromourculture'
(1991:32)andthroughtheprocessofsodoing,wecreateour
subjectivity;whiletheremaybe'raw'experienceinRicoeur's
view,subjectivity'isnevergivenatthestart'(1991:33).
Throughnarratingourliveswecreateasenseofselfandof
unityofthatself.Itisunclearwhenthesenarrativesmight
havebeguninorderforthemtopasseddownthroughculture,
however,themostsalientpointhereisthatRicoeurisarguing
thatthereissuchathingaslife,andthatthisisseparate
fromnarrative.

BigandSmall/20
Anarrativemightdifferfromeventsin'reality',butthis
doesnotmakeitlessvalid;theaiminthisresearchisto
understandhowpeoplerepresentaspectsoftheirlivesthrough
narrative.Thatis,narrativesareperformed;theyarenotan
expressionofaninnerstate,sotheymaydiffertemporallyand
contextually.

Performativity and the Quest to not find the truth

Butler'sviewofgenderasbeingsomethingpeopledo,
somethingtheyperformisusefulhere(gendertroublep25).For
Butler,genderis'freefloating',notconnectedtoanessential
gender.Butthe'freefloating'doesnotsupposea'choosing
subject'(bodiesp15)becausethesubjectisalwayswithinthe
confinesofpowerandcannotexistoutsideoforinoppositionto
thoseconstraints(p15bodies).Tothisextent,thesubject(in
linewithpostmdernideasthatanindividualisalways
constructedwithinthelinguisticorderLacan)isnotin
controloftheirperformancesoftheirgender,asaGoffmanian
readingmighthaveit.Butlermakesitclearthatperforming

BigandSmall/21
genderisnotakintoatheatricalperformance(p...)<thisisnot
justtheparticipant,buttheresearcheraswell>

Performativeperspectivesapproachnarrativesasco
constructedbetweentheteller(s)andtheaudienceandallowsfor
differentperformancesofidentityandtheself.Thisisinline
withpostpositivistresearchwhichdoesnotlookfor'ultimate
truths',astheydonotexisttobefound.Knowledgeissituated,
local,andcontextdependent.Thisideacomesoutofalongline
offeministresearch,whichhassoughttoexposethe
universalisingpowerofacademicresearchandbringwomen's
voicestotheforefront.Feministresearcherssoughttounpick
andchallengethe'viewfromnowhere'(??)whichmuchacademic
research,typicallyproducedbywhite,westernmen,hadadopted.

Challengestothemaledominantdiscourseledtoa
proliferationofworkbywomen,aboutwomen.Andyet,thisdid
notsolvetheproblem.Womenwerenotsimplyignoredinacademic
research,asHenriettaMoore(1988)haspointedout;muchwork
wasdonebyanthropologists,forexample,aboutwomen'sposition
indifferentsocieties.Shediscussesanthropologicalstudies
aboutwomeninwhichitwascommontofindthewomenrepresented
assubordinatewhichseemedtoaddweighttotheideathatthis

BigandSmall/22
was'thenaturalorder'ofthings.SherryOrtnerstrongly
assertedinherwellknownessaythat'womenaretonaturewhat
menaretoculture'(1974),arguingthatthesubordinationof
womenwasa'panculturalfact'(67),buttheacceptanceofthis
hasbeenchallenged.Ortnerwascriticisedforusingone
ethnocentricviewtodescribeanother,asthedivisionbetween
natureandculturewhichexistsinmanywesternsocietiescannot
beeasilymappedontoothercultures'viewsoftheworld.
Therefore,itiswrongtoassumethatmenandwomen'spositions
intheworldareuniversal.But,asMoorecomments,thisdivision
ofpoweralonggenderlines,frequentlyfoundinthewestern
world,isnotnecessarilyhowothersocietieswork.Moore
suggeststhatethnocentricassumptionsaboutwomenwerebeing
exportedandrepresentedinacademicresearch,perpetuatingthe
Westernviewofsocietyandinturnwaskeytocementingthisas
auniversalidea.Thedominanceofthisperspectivemeantwomen
ingeneralwerehomogenisedandpositionedasasubordinate
'mutedgroup'(EdwinArdenerxxxinMoore)whichcouldnotbe
representedbythedominantdiscourse.

Onecriticismofacademicresearchhasbeenthatthereisno
accountingfordifferencewithinwomen'sexperience;womenisnot
ahomogeneouscategory.Womenarealways'culturallyand

BigandSmall/23
historicallyspecific'(Moore1998:7),thusthereisnosuch
thingasauniversalwoman.Harawayarguedthattheresearchers
oftenwhite,middleclass,westernwomenalsoneededaccountfor
theirposition(1991:144).Theidentity'woman'needed,she
argued,tobedeconstructedculturally,butalsointermsof
ethnicity,socialclass,andsexuality.Likemanyfeminist
researchers,Harawaywasarguingthatwomen'sexperienceis
particular,andthatdifferencesinethnicity,class,and
nationalitycouldleadtoparticularexperiences.Thereforethe
position'white'alsoneededaccountingfor(1991:144).(also
PeggyPhalen).Itisnotenoughtothinkabouthowmenandwomen'
spositionsaredifferent,buttothinkabouthowsomewomen's
positionsaredifferentfromotherwomen.

Thedivisionbetweenmenandwomenwasimposedonsocieties
outsidethewesternworldbyanthropologistswhosawtheworldin
termsofthisbinarygenderdivide,withimplicationsfor
differencesinthekindsofknowledgeassociatedwitheach.
Biologicaldifference,however,doesnotexplaindifferencesin
thesocialsignificanceofthatdifference(Moore1998:7),so
biologicaldifferenceshouldnotbetakenasanindicationof
difference,orofsimilarity.Thispointhasbeentakenupin

BigandSmall/24
morerecentworkonmasculinitites.JustasHarawaypointedout
thatwomenisnotahomogenousgroup,norismen.

Biologicaldeterminismhasbeenapowerfulmodelin
academia,which,accordingtoHaraway(1991:XX),hasmaintained
thesubordinationofwomen.Modelsofprimatesocietyhavebeen
bothinfluencedbyassumptionsabouthumanmalefemalesocial
relationships,andhaveinturninfluencedhowthose
relationshipsareunderstoodinsociety(1991:8).(domination).
Knowledgeproducedbyresearchersinthenaturalscienceshas
propagatedthecontrolandexploitationofwomen,accordingto
Haraway,byenforcingthe'splitbetweennatureandcultureand
betweenformsofknowledgerelatingtothesetwoputatively
irreconcilablerealms'(1991:8),thatknowledgewhichisoften
thoughttobedividedintoreasonandemotion.
Thispositionalityguardsagainstthe'allseeing,all
knowing'(GIllainRose305)researcher,foundinmuchacademic
research.Situatingoneselfasaresearcherinvolvesseeingone's
ownpositionclearly,butthisisnotastraightforwardact.In
herseminalessayonthesubject,Rosearguedthat'transparent
reflexivity'(xxx),orseeingone'spositionclearly,isnotonly
verydifficult,butseekstoimposeorderontheresearchwhich
isunachievable.Knowingboththeselfandthecontextfullyand

BigandSmall/25
clearlyisimpossible.Researchersworkingwithinafeminist,
reflexiveparadignshouldacknowledgeandacceptthis
impossibility.InvokingButler,Rosearguesthat'researcher,
researchedandresearchmakeeachother'(xxx),soresearchis
coconstructedandratherthansearchforafully'transparent'
viewpoint,weshouldembracethedifficultyofthisand
acknowledgethatknowledgeisalwaysalreadypartial.

[Thesechallengeshelpedtocementwomen'splacein
academia,butalsosoughttochallengeideasaboutwhatitis
possibletoknow,andwhatconstitutesknowledge.Moreemphasis
onembodiedunderstandingsandtheimportanceofemotional,
subjectiveknowledgewascalledfor.]

The'truths'ofanarrativecanonlybeviewedinrelation
totheconnectionswhichnarratorsmakebetweenpast,presentand
future.AsReissmansuccintlyputsit,'the"trustworthiness"of
narrativeaccountscannotbeevaluatedusingtraditional
correspondencecriteria'(reissman..).Postpositivist
perspectivesavoidseekingultimatetruthsbecauseitisnon
sensicaltodoso.Theholdthatsearchingforthe'truth'hasis
strong,however,anditcanbeseenresurfacinginrecent
debates.ThebigandsmallapproacheswhichIoutlinedearlier

BigandSmall/26
differinseveralways,andthemostrelevantpointhereistheir
alignmentwiththe'truth'ofreallife.Smallstoryresearch
advocatesfortakingnarrativesfromeverydayinteractions,
producedspontaneouslywithoutinterventionsfromtheresearcher.
Bamberg(XXXX)arguesthatthesesortsofutterancesand
fragmentsofconversationsdepictmoreaccuratelythewaythat
peopleinteractthroughdiscourseandhowtheyproduceidentities
ininteraction.Thebigapproach,Bambergargues,doesnotgivea
'true'reflectionofhowpeopleunderstandtheirlives,because
elicitingnarrativesininterviewsituationsinvolvesreflection;
itistalkaboutlife,ratherthanlifeitself.AsFreeman(XXX)
haspointedout,though,thereareanumberofproblemswith
Bamberg'sview.Firstly,Bambergassumesthatordinarypeopledo
notreflectontheirlives,whichseemsunlikely.Secondlybomber
assumesthatspontaneouslyproducedspeechismoreindicativeof
'truth'.FreemantakesissuewithBamberg'sunderstandingofhow
closetothe'truth'people'sspontaneousutterancesare.
Bamberg'sclaimsthatnarrativeselicitedininterviewsituations
cannotreallytellresearchersanythingabouthowpeople
understandtheirlivesas,hecontends,beingaskedtothink
aboutandreflectuponone'slifeinvolvesdistancingoneself
fromone'slife.Bamberghascalledthissortofreflective
account'lifeonholiday'(xxxx);an'unnatural'wayoftalking

BigandSmall/27
aboutone'slifewhichdoesnotoccurinanyothercontext.As
Goodson(2013)hasnoted,takingtimeoutthedaytostopand
talkaboutevents,toreflectonthingswhichwerehappeningis
anintegralpartofmefamilies'lives.Inhisfamilyitwas'a
partof[their]dailylifetogether'(2013:3),whichposessome
questionsaboutBamberg'sassertion.Freeman,though,arguesthat
elicitednarrativesaredistinctfromspontaneousconversations,
butthat,likeholidays,theyarenotabreakfromlife,buta
partoflife.Elicitednarrativesaredifferentfromutterances
producedinspontaneousspeech,andassuchtheymaybeperformed
inparticularways,buttheycananddostillprovidevaluable
informationaboutthewaysinwhichpeopleunderstandthemselves
andtheirlives.
Theresearcherinthissenseispartoftheaudience,but
theaudiencecouldalsobeanimaginedaudience(thereadersof
thethesis,forexample),ortherecouldbeaninternalaudience
withinthenarrative.Theresearcherisalsopartofthe
narrationtoacertainextent,asthetopicsandthequestions
provide'scaffolding'forthenarrative.Justasnarratorsare
positionedvisavisotherpeople,theyarealsosituatedin
time.Assuch,pasteventsarerepresentedfromthevantagepoint
ofthepresent.Theinterpretiveview,whichresearcherswho
advocatethatnarrativesarecoconstructedusuallyadopt,does

BigandSmall/28
notplacemuchimportanceonverifyingthe'truth'ofnarrative
accounts.Ofgreaterinterestintheperformativeparadigmisthe
waysinwhichnarratorsrepresenttheirexperiencesandevents
becausethefocusisonunderstandinghowmeaningchanges,and
howpersonalnarrativesmightrelatetoandbeinformedbywider
historicalandculturalnarratives(Reissman...).Narrators
interprettheirpastsinrelationstheirpresentandtoimagined
futuresoralternatelives.

Giventheperformativenatureofnarration,theinteraction
betweentheparticipantsandresearcherneedstobeconsidered
becausetheparticularnarrativecreatedwillbespecifictothat
situation.Narrativeresearchwhichviewsthenarrativeasco
constructediswellpoisedtoembracetheideathatthe
researcherisutterlyimplicatedintheendresult.Thereisno
waytoentirelyfilterouttheresearcher'sinfluenceonthe
researchinterview(Squire20032005)andIdonotaspiretotry
todothis.Withthatinmind,Ithinkoftheresearchinterviews
asakintoaconversationinasmuchastheresponsesofthe
peopleinvolvedareguidedbytheinteractions.Theyarenotthe
sameasaconversation,astheresearchinterviewisplannedand
ultimatelyhasanagendawhichisdictatedbytheresearcher,
but,justasImightinothersortsofconversational

BigandSmall/29
interaction,Iwouldberesponsivetowhattheparticipantssay,
andwouldnotrigidlysticktoasetofquestionsorpromptsif
theparticipantsseemedtobemovingtheconversationinanother
direction.

Trees and Potatoes

Thus,therelationshipbetweenselfandstoryiscomplex.An
interestingconceptualisationofthisrelationshipismadeby
Loots,CoppensandSermijnwhoadoptDeleuzeandGuattari's
conceptoftherhizome.Inthisrhizomaticapproachtonarrative
therearemultiplewayswhichanarrativecanbeginandeach
possiblestartingpointisrepresentedbyoneofthebranchesof
arhizome.
ThedefinitiongivenbyDeleuzeandGuattariofarhizome
emphasisesitsconnectedandchangeablenature.Theysayof
rhizomes,

BigandSmall/30
'Unliketreestotheirroots,therhizomeconnectsanypoint
toanyotherpoint[...]therhizomeisreducibletoneitherthe
Oneorthemultiple.Itisnotamultiplederivedfromtheone,
ortowhichoneisadded(n+1).Ithasneitherbeginningnorend,
butalwaysamiddle(milieu)fromwhichitgrowsandwhichit
overspills[...]whenamultiplicityofthiskindchanges
dimension,itnecessarilychangesinnatureaswell,undergoesa
metamorphosis[...]therhizomepertainstoamapthatmustbe
produced,constructed,amapthatisalwaysdetachable,
connectable,reversible,modifiable,andhasmultiple
entrancewaysandexitsanditsownlinesofflight'(Deleuzeand
Guattari1987:21)

DeleuzeandGuattaricriticisedualisticthinkinginherited
fromCartesianmind/bodydualismand'arborescent'(p16)
thinking,suchasthatseeninChomskianlinguistics,which
operatesonthebasisofbinary,branchinglogic.Therhizomatic
approachisanattempttoreplacethebinariescommonlyfoundin
modernistthought,suchasbiologicalorsocial,withawayof
thinkingwhichencompassestheembodiedbeing.RivenandRyan
(1998:345)sumupDeleuzeandGuattari'sapproachtothebodyas
'thoughtnolongerstandsoutsidematter[isnolonger
disembodiedalongCartesianlines]...thoughtisamovewithin

BigandSmall/31
matteritself'.ForDeleuzeandGuattari,thehumanbodyoverlaps
withotherbodiesandwithnature(Gibson2006:189).Deleuzeand
Guattarithinkofbodiesas'assemblages'whichcombinewith
materialandsymbolicdomainsindynamicconfigurations
constantlyinastateofbecoming(Malins2004:88).
Thisisallwellandgoodbuthowcantherhizomebeuseful
innarrativeresearch?Lootsetal.answerthisquestionby
combiningrhizomaticthinkingwiththeListeningGuidemethodas
awayofanalysingnarratives.TheListeningGuideMethodisa
'voicecentredrelationalapproach'usedofteninpsychology,
whichallowstheresearchertofollowthedifferent'voices'
whichareunderstoodtobedistinguishableinanarrative.This
method,Lootsetalarguecanbeusedinacontextcentred
approachas'stories[are]performancesrespondingtolife
insteadofarepresentationoflife'p116,thusperformanceis
keytotherhizomaticunderstanding.Narrativeisaperformance,
butonewhichhasthepotentialtochangethenarrator'sviewand
openupnewpossibilitiesforthingstohappen(p119).A
narrativewillvary,then,dependingonwhichentryway(rhizome
branch)istaken,andthiswillbeinfluencedbythecontext,
whichincludestheresearcher,hisorherquestions,andhisor
herinteractions.

BigandSmall/32
TheListeningGuideMethodinvolvesseriesofstepsinwhich
theresearcher'listens'tothenarrativetofindplot,'I
poems',contrapuntalvoicesandcompositionandanalysis.Similar
totheLabovianmethodinthatitisastructuredwayof
approachingananalysis,itisquitedistinctinthatdeparts
fromadifferentsetofassumptionsaboutwhatnarrativeis,and
isunderpinnedbytheideaofamultipleself,theimportanceof
context,onthepremiseofusing'voice,resonanceand
relationship'(Gilligan,Spencer,WeinbergandBerth2003)as
entrypointsintothenarrative.Thesteps,asfarasI
understandit,canbeusedtogetherorindependentlyinorderto
accessanarrativeandasthemethodisbasedontheideaofa
multilayerself,'apersonsvoiceisconsideredasaconstitutive
expressionofher/hisdynamicandmultilayeredinnerworld,
bearingthetracesofbeingembodiedincultureand
relationships'(Lootsetal114).
Intheirstudyofparentswhosechildrenhavebeenabducted
inNorthernUganda,theyusethismethodtoanalysethe
narratives.Theypresentasamplefromatabletheymadeduring
theanalysis,whichhasquotesfromthenarrativesgatheredwith
anAcholiwomanwhosedaughterwasabducted.Thecolumnswhich
categorisethe'voices'pickoutsuchvoicesasa'voiceofno
control',anda'voiceoffightingback'.Byusingthismethod

BigandSmall/33
theywereabletoidentifyvoiceswhichmovedacrossinterviews
atdifferenttimesand'expressthevariety,interplayand
dynamics'(115)oftheinterviewee'sexperience.Theapproach
challengestheideathatnarrativesareproducedbyasingle
subjectivity(116)andemphasisestheideaofnarrativeas
performance.
ToreturntoButler,theseperformancesarenotgivenonthe
whimofthenarrator,butaredependentoncontextandthismeans
thatalimitednumberof'entryways'areavailable.Thisalso
emphasisestheneedfor'extensiveandmultifarious'(Loots
116)periodsandmethodsofdataproduction,inwhich
relationshipsarebuiltupwithparticipantsandconversations
arerepeatedatdifferenttimesandindifferentways.This
methodnotonlyallowsustoseehowvoicesconnectacross
narratives,butwhereandhowtheydisconnect'whichresultsina
mapofthemultiplesocialculturalvoices'whichparticipants
mayusetonarratetheirexperiences.Thismethodtonarrative
analysispositions'storiesasperformancesrespondingtolife
insteadofarepresentationoflife'(Lootsetcp116).Ofcourse,
thiscomprehensiveapproachtogatheringnarrativesandanalysing
themdoesnotmeanthatacomplete,definitiveportraitofthe
narratorwillbeachieved,andthisiscertainlynotthe
objective.However,thisisonemethodwhichoffersresearchersa

BigandSmall/34
creativewayintothenarrativesandmaintainstheperspectiveof
performativiry.Themethod,whichseemstobebasedonlinguistic
dataisperhapslimitedandgiventhatnotallknowledgeis
'orderedthroughthediscursive'(Latham2002:2000),thereis
needtoextendtheanalysistoincludenonverbalcommunication.

Coherence

Butthisviewperhapssuggeststhatthenarrativeswecreate
arestructuredandcohesive;strongenoughtoimposeasenseof
psychicorderontotheformlessnessofeverydaylife.Some
degreeoforderingandevaluatingperhapsmakeiteasierforthe
listenertofollow(Reissman),andReissmandrawsonSalmon's
examplesofchildspeechandpsychoticspeechtodemonstratehow
disjointed,unstructurednarrativescanseemjustlikewordsand
phrasesthrownatthelistenerwithoutanymeaning.Perhapsthese
seeminglymeaninglesssequencesshouldnotbedismissedtoosoon,
though,asevendisjointednessnarrativescanbecome

BigandSmall/35
comprehensible.Narrativeswhicharenotalwayscomprehensibleat
firsthearingcanhavestillhavemeaning,ifonlytothe
narrator.Thewaypeoplenarratetheirlivesisnotalways
cohesiveandstructured(big/smalldebate),thestorieswetell
areoftenunfinished,fullofdoubtandcontradiction.Andrecent
workonnarrativehasencouragedamoveawayfromlookingfor
'complete',cohesivenarrativestofocusingonthespecificityof
smallersectionsofnarrative,whichmayonlyhavemeaningfora
particularlistenerinaparticularcontext.

Evenso,manynarrativesdohavesomesenseofcoherence,
butthatcoherenceisnotalwaysrelatedtosequentialordering
(Squire,Andrews,tamboukouintro).Psychoanalyticperspectives
haveopeneduppossibilitiesforthinkingaboutthejuxtaposition
ofnonchronologicallysequencedeventsinanarrativeas
meaningfulthroughfreeassociation.Thus,givingrisetothe
inclusionofeventswhichdonotseemtoberelatedtothe'main'
narrative(Squire,Andrews,Tamboukou2008:11).Otherwaysof
givingordertoanarrativemightcomefromusingspatial
metaphorsornonverbalgestures.Thisdoesnotsweepawayclaims
thatorderingisanelementofnarrative,butitservesasa
cautionagainsttoreadilyassumingthatthisorderingisalways
temporal.Anothercautionwhenthinkingthroughtheorderingof

BigandSmall/36
narrativecanbegleanedfrom'small'storyresearch.Fromthis
perspective,narrativesarecreatedovertimeaswaysofcreating
identities(BambergandDeFinaxxx)andanarrativemaytake
severalepisodesofinteractionatdifferenttimesbeforeitis
'complete'.Theresearchermaybelimitedinthattheymaynot
heartheentirenarrative,andmight,therefore,categoriseitas
unfinished,orincompletebecausethatishowthey,asthe
listener,hadaccesstoit.Withthisinmind,whatexactly
constitutesanarrativemightneedtobeflexibleandReissman
concedesthatrigidideasaboutwhatconstitutesanarrative
shouldbendsomewhat,and,returningtotheexampleofchild
speech,concludesthatchildrenhavetolearnhowtonarratefor
adults,sothattheymightbeunderstood.Perhapsthiscouldbe
takenfurther,toaconsiderationoflearningtonarratefor
differentaudiences,andfordifferentreasons.Amanagermight
havetolearntonarratewithauthority,apatienttolearnhow
tonarratetogetasympatheticresponsefromthedoctor,asales
persontolearnhowtonarratetoconvince,astudenttonarrate
withinacademicconstraints.Inotherwords,itisnotonlythe
passingoftime,thetransitionfromchildhoodtoadulthoodand
theacquisitionoflanguage,whichresultsinanabilitytotell
astory.Ifwedonotlearntospeakinthe'right'ways,werisk
notbeingheard,anddismissedasincoherent.

BigandSmall/37

Reissman & Salmon looking back

Reissman&Salmonlookingback
Ricoeur(1991
Squire,Andrews,tamboukouintro
BambergandDeFinaxxx)
ButlerGenderTrouble
HenriettaMoore1998
EdwinArdenerxxxinMoore
SherryOrtnerstronglyassertedthatinherwellknownessay
thatwomenaretonaturewhatmenaretoculture'(1974
Haraway(1991:XX
GIllainRose305
Bamberg(XXXX
Freeman
Goodson(2013)
Squire20032005
Loots,CoppensandSermijn

BigandSmall/38
Deleuze,G.andFelixGuattari(1987)AThousandPlateus
(trans.BrianMassumi)Minneapolois:UniversityofMinnesota
Press
Gibson,B.E.(2006)"Disability,Connectivityand
TransgressingtheAutonomousBody"inJournalofMedical
Humanities,27pp.187196
Malins,P.(2004)"Machinicassemblages:Deleuze,Guattari
andethicoaestheticsofdruguse"inJanusHead7:1pp.84104
Rivkin,JandMichealRyan(eds)(1998)LiteraryTheory:An
AnthologyOxford:Blackwell

Chapter Three: Bodies and

Beyond the text

Despite the important work done by theorists of

performativity
Despitetheimportantworkdonebytheoristsof
performativity,thetendencytowriteaboutrepresentationsof
thebody,totalkaboutthebodyasanobjecthasleftroomfor

BigandSmall/39
moreconsiderationofthelivedbody,aperspectivedevelopedby
phenomenologists.

Thus, the body cannot and should not be ignored.

In
Thephysicalpresenceofbodiesisrelevantinboththe
tellingofandthelisteningtonarratives;itisabodily
process.Thisisimportantifonetakestheview,asIdo,that
narrativesarecoconstructedasthelistenerisactiveinthe
production,andthestoryistoldtothespecificlistening
bodies,aswellasotherimaginedaudiences(Hyden2008:129).
Intheparticularinstanceoflovestoriesandemotional
narratives,bodiesincloseproximitycanandmaytoucheach
other.Gesturesandembraces,orrefusalsofsuchmightformpart
ofthenarrative;perhapsnoteverythingaboutourexperiences
canbe,oris,verbalised.AsHydenputsit'tellers,aswellas
listeners,usetheirbodiesasabundleofcommunicative
resources'(2008:139),sothebodyconveysmeaningthrough
gesturesandtellspartsofthestory.Hydengivestheexampleof
twowomenwithAlzheimer'swho,thoughtheyhavetroubletelling
theirstoriesthroughwords,areabletocommunicatemeaning

BigandSmall/40
throughbodilymovement.[Somethingfromoutlineaboutgesture
etc..]
Alisteners'physicalpresencemayinfluencehowthestory
isshapedandtold,butthelisteneralsoneedstodrawupon
theirownbodilyexperiencestounderstandwhatisbeingsaid.
InthefamousexampleofMarcelProustsippingteaandeating
madeleinesthereaderneedstohaveasimilarexperiencetodraw
uponinordertounderstandProust'srelivingofthechildhood
memories(Bolens2012).Theknowledgerequiredtounderstandthe
Prussianmemoryisbodily.Knowledge,then,isconnectedtoour
sensesandtoourbody.Experiencesareinextricablyintertwined
withbodilyexperience,inthiscasewithtaste(Bolens2012).
Listeningtoastoryrequiresthelistenertodrawupontheir
previousbodilyexperiences(Hyden2008).
Ourgesturesshouldnotonlybethoughtofasanotherform
oflanguage,whichpointtoaninnerexperience.Ourexperiences
gofurtherthansituatingourlanguageasabodilyexperience;
ourgesturesalsoconnectuswithourenvironments(Goodwin2003:
XX).ThisiswhatGoodwinhascalledthe'modality'ofour
experience.These'modal'gesturesmightbegesturesmadeduring
apresentation,fingerprintsleftonacomputerscreenwhen
pointingsomethingout(p22),orthepatternsinsoilandthe

BigandSmall/41
soilunderthefingernailswhentracingshapesinthesurfaceof
theground(p25ish).

Ifbodiesimpactonthewaythestoryistold,orifthey
arepartofthestoryanditstelling,thentheideathatbodies
aredisposedtotellparticularstoriescouldbeaninteresting
waytoextendthisidea.Thewaysthatpeoplearecompelledto
tellparticularstoriesandnotothershasbeenexploredthrough
theideaofanarrativehabitus.Thisconceptwasfirstdiscussed
byFrank(2010),whodiscusses

Visual methods
Pushingnarrativeresearchbeyondlinguisticboundarieshas
seenresearchersembracingmaterialswhichareoutsidethe
interviewtranscript.Thisistypicalof'small'story
approaches,aswellasapproacheswhichseenarrativeas
experiencedbased,orcoconstructed.Bothspeechandwritingare
includedinwhatconstitutesmaterialsfornarrativeresearchin
theseparadigms,alongwith'scrapsofletters,laundrylists,
extensivemultivolumediaries;visualmethodslikephotoalbums
andvideodiaries;andnarrativesinheringonobjectsandactions
suchasthearrangementofobjectsonmantelpiecesandthe

BigandSmall/42
everydayactivitiesofshopping,cooking,andeating'(Squire
2008:5).Thisstudyusesspokenandwrittennarrativesaswell
asformofvisualmethodstoelicitnarrativesaboutlove
migrationbyaskingparticipantstochooseanobjectwhichhas
meaningfortheminthecontextoftheirrelationship.Somehave
arguedthatexpandingtheparametersofwhatcountsasnarrative
sogreatly,makesthetermsobroadastobemeaningless(Craib
2004),butembracingthe'playfulness'(Latham2002:2010)of
researchopensuppossibilitiestoresearchphenomenasuchas
emotions,theeverydayandthenonhumanwhichconventional
approacheshavestruggledwith.

Thisrelatescloselytohowthebodycanbebroughtinto
socialscienceresearch.ResearcherssuchasGillValentinehave
arguedforthebodytobeincludedinresearchandfor
researcherstoembracetheideathatthebodyencompasses'all
thesenses'(ValentineXXX331inLatham).Yetheranalyseshave
beencriticisedforcenteringon'talk'(Latham2007:1999).Her
work,Lathamargues,doesnotsufficientlytakeintoaccount'the
waysinwhichthevisual,forexample,isactuallyprofoundly
shapedbyoursenseoftouch,orhowemotionalbondsbetween
peoplearebuiltthroughphysicalintimacy'(2004:1999).He
continuesinthisfootnotetosaythataspectsofembodied

BigandSmall/43
existencemayescapethegraspofacademicsocialscience
writing,anideawhichheencouragesustoaccept.
Theideathatnoteveryexperiencecanberepresentedwith
words,andareassuchalwayspartialaccountsbringsusbackto
theideaofperformativity.Thispartialityshouldnotlead
researcherstoabandonhopeofproducingproductiveanalyses
(RoseXXX),butshouldsteerusawayfromlookingfor'depth'
(Latham2007:2004)andtowardproducingdetailedaccountswhich
inturncreatericherandmorevariedportraitsofthe
participants.Lathamadvocatesmethodologicalpluralismasaway
ofdoingthis,whichdoesnotstopatthemethodsusedtoelicit
data,butextendstothewayswhichresearchispresented.The
researchprocessitselfshouldbeseenasperformative.Inthis
light,researchersneednotturntheirbacksonmethodswhich
havesofarcommonlybeenused,butcouldconsidertheminnews
wayssoastofosterunderstandingandtopushtheboundariesof
whatresearchshouldlooklike.TheexampleLathamusesistime
spacegraphs,whichforaperiodwerepopularincultural
geography,buthavesincefallenoutoffavour.Thejuxtaposition
oftextandimagesonagraphisawayofpresentinginformation
inanonwritten,nonlinearwaywhichcanprovide'setof
narrativeresourcesthroughwhichthereadercangainasenseof
thetextureoftherelationshipstheresearcherisseekingto

BigandSmall/44
describe'(2009).Itfollowsthatifthereareexperiencesand
knowledgeswhichcannotbeexplainedverbally,researchersmay
neednonverbalwaysofrepresentingthem.Lathamexemplifies
throughanexamplefromfieldworkinwhichheaskedaparticipant
questionswhichtheparticipantfounddifficulttoanswer.One
reasonforthis,Lathamreflects,wasbecausethequestionwas
aboutknowledgewhichtheparticipanthad'gainedthrough
practicalusage'(2007:2000),andhadperhapsneverhadto
verbalise.Someknowledgeisonlyknownthroughphysical
experience,notthroughlanguage,andIagreewithLathamthat
researchmethodsshouldthinkbeyondthediscursiveinattempts
toaccessthis.Itisnotenoughtoreframetheoriesintermsof
thebody,andembodiedexperience;whatiscalledforisa
shakingupofmethodswhichmightcomeclosertosomeofthe
shiftsinthinking.Researchersneednotbeweddedtoatheoryor
setoftheoreticalprinciplesandmethods,butselect
combinationsofthosewhicharemosthelpfulinunderstandingthe
issuesunderscrutiny.Thismightseemliketheoreticalcherry
pickingwhichcouldleadtoanincreasinglyfragmentedfield
withsuchdiversityofapproachandmethodthatthereislittle
roomfordialogueswithinandacrossdisciplines.However,
anotherwayoflookingatthisisthatitisa'zestydisarray'

BigandSmall/45
(Smith2007:394)whichcouldleadtovibrantandexcitingnew
dialogues.
Usingvisualmethodssuchasphotographyinordertoinclude
'theunspokenandunspeakableaspectsofroutinelives'(Knowles
2006:518).Justaslanguageandinteractioncanbethoughtofas
dialogic(BakhtinXXXX),seeingisalsopartofthatdialogue,as
Knowleshasargued.Usingvisualmethodscanhelpresearchers
understandthewaythatpeopleperformtheiridentities,notjust
howtheyverbalisethem.Inherworkaboutracecarriedoutwith
BritishmigrantstoHongKong,CarolineKnowlesused
'environmentalportraiture'becausevisuallyrecordingpeoplein
theirenvironmentsandinteractionscanreveal'moments,glances,
postures,cluesaboutrelationships,thingsthatarewritten
acrossthefaceandonthesurfacesofthebody.Itcapturesrace
asliveperformance:raceaspeopledoitratherthanverbally
articulateit'(Knowles2006:518).AsDalyremindsus,
researchersshouldbewaryofsuggestingthattheoriesand
concepts'emerge'fromdata,asthoughttheywerethereallalong
waitingtobe'captured'(1997:348).Whenusingvisualmethods
inconjunctionwithverbalones,itisperhapsagoodideato
bearinmindthatneitheroneisclosertothe'truth'thanthe
other;ahierarchyofmethodsisperhapsnotusefulinthis
sense.Moreover,'seeingisaskilledsocialpractice'(Jenks

BigandSmall/46
1995:10),andtheresearcher's'wayofseeing'(BergerXXXX)is
alsosociallyembedded.

Analysis
Muchemphasisisplacedongatheringandproducing
narrativesintermsofcoconstructionandtheethicssurrounding
thosedebates.Thisperspectivemightextendalsotothe
analysis.Whenthinkingaboutincorporatingvisualmethodsasa
wayofgatheringinformation,itmakessensetoincorporate
imagesintheanalysisandreportingoftheinformation.Images
canbeusedinasimilarwaytoquotesfrominterviews,for
exampletoillustrateandexemplifytheresearcher'sideas.Some
havegonefurtherthanthisbypresentingimageswithminimal
textandallowingtheimagestobeinterpretedbythereader.
ThismethodwasusedbyDouglasHarperinapaperaboutjack,a
BritishmigranttoHongKongwhohadbeenaJapanesePrisonerof
War.HarperworkedwithJacktomakeimagesthatJackwashappy
representedaspectsofhislifeinwaysthatherecognised.This
particulararticlehasmoreimagesthanitdoes'conventional'
writtenanalysis,andImustadmittowonderingwherethererest

BigandSmall/47
ofthearticlehadgonewhenIfirstreadit.Thisexperience
showshowengrainedtheideaofwrittenanalysisisinmyown
understanding,butIamfairlyconfidentthatIwouldnotbethe
onlyonetoexperiencethis.Mysurpriseatnotseeing'enough'
writingleadstoaconnectedpoint,thatalternativewaysof
presentingresearchmightopenupaneedforreaderstobe
preparedandabletoaccessthatwork.Myownacademicbackground
includesMaster'slevelstudyinfineart,soIamfamiliarwith
variouswaysto'read'andinterpretphotographs.Thisdidnot
stopmefromfeelingthatsomethingwasmissing,andwhileasI
saidearlierthisismyownshortcoming,itdoesopenupthe
questionofhowthiskindofpresentationmightbeinterpretedby
readerswhoarenotparticularlyvisual.Researchersusingvisual
methodshaveoftenincorporatedimagesintoacademicarticlesin
muchthesamewayasonemightinsertaquote,whichisthen
followedbysomecommentoranalysis(forexampleGabbXXXX)and
inthissense,theincorporationofvisualshasstayedwithinthe
conventionalparametres.Findingwaystopresentresearchwhich
canincorporatevisualmethodsshouldperhapsnotbeawayof
avoidinganalysis,whichIfearsomereadersmight(wronglyinmy
view)interpretphotoessaysas.However,justasfewresearchers
wouldpresentaninterviewtranscriptwithoutcommentor
analysis,presentingvisualresearchshouldperhapsinclude

BigandSmall/48
commentarywhichguidesthereaderandfillsincontextwhich
theywouldnothave.Thereisadangerwiththrowingimagesatan
academicaudiencetoothattheresearchwill(again,wronglyin
myview)beinterpretedaslessseriousoracademicthanmore
conventionalwrittenaccounts,orthoseinwhichthevisualsare
statisticaldataandgraphs.However,restrictingthe
presentationofresearchtoacademicarticlesandbooksleaves
outanenormousvarietyofformats,increasinglysoina
technologicalage,whichcouldenrichandenlivenacademic
research.

Collaborativeresearchstartsfromtheprinciplethat
narrativesareproducedincontext,throughinteractionbetween
people.Lassiterdistinguishesthetermcollaborativefrom
meaningthatanethnographyiscarriedoutbymultiple
ethnographers,andusesittorefertoethnographictextswhich
arecoconstructedbetweenresearcherandresearched,arguing
thatcollaborativeethnographyentailsboththe'doingand
writing',aprocesswhich'yieldstextsthatarecoconceivedor
cowritten'(2005:15).Indeed,Lassiterusestheterm
'consultants'(2005:20?)torefertothepeopleheinterviewed
andstudiedwhichisaninterestingwayofacknowledgingtherole

BigandSmall/49
whichparticipantsplayintheresearchprocess.Withinthefield
ofethnography,theinterpretiveframeworkhasledtomore
fluiditybetweenemicandeticperspectives,stemmingfromthe
understandingthatanunadulteratedobjectivepositionisperhaps
unachievable(GeertzXXXX).
Andyet,Lassitercontends,thereisconfusionbetweenthe
ideaofcoauthoredtextsandcowrittentexts;theformerbeinga
moreconventionalapproachwiththeresearcheras'compilerand
translator'ofotherwords;thelatter,givingmorevoicetothe
'consultants''perspectives.Fewresearchershavegonefarenough
intakingthecriticalstep,asLassitercallsit,ininvolving
participantsinrespondingtothetexts.
Previousresearchwhichpositedauthoritativeaccountsofan
objectiverealityhave,insomesocialscienceresearch,shifted
andtheresearcher'spowerandauthoritynolongergo
unquestioned(Daly1997:349).AsSamuelR.Cooknotesinthe
commentarytoLassiter'sarticle,powerisattherootof
collaborativemethods,andquiteunderstandabley,despitemoves
awayfromtheauthoritativeresearchermanyarestillkeento
have'thelastword'(FieldXXX),soastoretainan
authoritativeandcrediblevoice.Giventheneedtoretain
authorityandcredibilitywithinacademia,researchersmighthave
stoppedshortofpushingtheboundariesforfearofnotbeing

BigandSmall/50
takenseriously(AbuLughod1990).Thisisparticularlysofor
womenwritingaboutotherwomen,aswomenarealwaysalready
Otherwithinacademia(MasciaLees,Sharpe,andCohen1989),as
such,AbuLughodcontends,'theypreferredtoestablishtheir
credibility,gainacceptance,andfurthertheirintellectual
andpoliticalaims'(1990:19).
Collaborativemethodsinvolveotherproblems,suchaswhen
thevisionoftheresearcherandparticipantsdonotcoincide.
Thiscouldinvolvetheparticipantswantingtoproducea'
conventional,authoritative,academicallypositionedtext'
(Lassiter2005:93)preciselytodevelopacrediblevoicefor
whatmaybeanunderrepresentedgroup,wheretheresearcherwants
toproduceareflexive,collaborativepieceinordertochallenge
thoseconventionalacademicconventions.Astrikingexampleof
theproblemsfacedincollaborativeresearchisgivenbyJudith
Staceyin'Cantherebeafeministethnography?'(1988).She
interviewsafemale,Christianfundamentalistwhotellsherofa
secretlesbianrelationshipshehashadandasksStaceynotto
divulgethisinformation.Staceyisthenconfrontedwithan
impossiblechoice;torevealtherelationshipwouldhavebeen
exploitative,buttohonourherparticipant'srequestforsecrecy
isto'colludewiththehomophobicsilencingoflesbian
experience,aswellastoconsciouslydistortwhatIconsidera

BigandSmall/51
crucialcomponentoftheethnographic'truth'inmystudy.
Whateverwedecide,myethnographywillbetrayafeminist
principle'(1988:21).Collaborative,feministresearchmaynot
everbebaletobefullyrealised(Stacey1988),buteffortsto
movetowardsithavemadeimportantmovestoreconceptualisewhat
knowledgeisandacknowledgethatitissituated.
Thisperspectivecanalsobeextendedtothinkingabouthow
theoryfitsintoresearchcarriedoutwithinafeminist,
reflexiveparadigmwhichembracescollaboration.Ifknowledgeis
situated(seeHarawayXXXX,forexample),thentheoriesaboutthe
worldshouldalsobeseenasproducedbypeopleinspecific
contexts,times,andplaces.FollowingOakley,Dalyarguesthat
peoplehavebeensidelinedintheorisingabouttheworld.
Emotions,feelings,andthoughtshavebeenexcludedinfavourof
'rational','objective'approaches.But,asmanyfeminist
researcherswouldargue,therecannotbeanyneutralresearch
(Lather1986),sotheoriesareall'atsomelevelpersonal
stories'(Daly1997:354).Theoryshouldperhapsnotbe
jettisonedyet,accordingtoDaly,whoproposesthatamore
usefulwayofinvolvingacademictheoriesinpeoplebased
researchistoacknowledgethespecificityofthattheory.Once
thisisdone,wemightaskwhetheracademicwritingneedsto
remainsofirmlywithintheconfinesofscience,orwhetherit

BigandSmall/52
couldbesituatedaspartofwiderpublicdiscourses(1997:354).
Thispositiondoesnotrejecttheory,butembracesandopensit
to'inquiry,critique,andchange'(1997:354).
Recentscholarshiphaspickedupideasaboutreflexivityand
collaboration.JanineTeerling'susedcollaborativemethodsin
herdoctoralresearchcarriedoutwithCypriot????.Despite
reservationsaboutthereactionsshewouldgetfromher
respondants,theresponseswerefavourable.Sheaskedfor
commentsondraftsofthechapters,andfoundthatthe
participantswereabletorecognisethemselvesinthewriting,
andgenerallyagreedwithandacceptedheranalysis.Whilethis
isundoubtedlyencouraging,itleavesopenquestionsaboutthe
willingnessofparticipantstochallengeorquestionthe
researcher'sauthority.Moreover,theinterestintheproject
mightsuggestthattheseparticipantshadfavourableattitudesto
academicresearchandmightbeunlikelytoquestionitbecauseof
this.Teerlingpointedoutthatthisextrasteprequired
returningtoCyprussothattheparticipantscouldcommentonthe
draftchapters,whichinvolvedextratime.Collaborationmightbe
limitedforpracticalreasons,then,butperhapsforconceptual
reasonsaswell.
Whendealingwithnarrativesaboutloverelationships,the
interimbetweeninterviewsandanalysismightmeanthatsomeof

BigandSmall/53
therelationshipsend.Inthiscase,askingparticipantsto
commentontheirnarrativesmightbeundulypainful.Itmight
alsobethatonlyoneoftheformercouplecanbecontacted,in
whichcasequestionsarisearoundwhetheronlyoneofthemshould
begiventhechancetovoicetheirreflectionsontheco
constructednarrative.Thereare,ofcourse,practicalwaysof
dealingwithsuchcircumstancessuchasattemptingtocontact
bothpartnersandstatingclearlythatonewasunavailable.
However,Iamraisingamoregeneral,philosophicalquestion
abouttheethicsofcollaboration,whohasarighttobeallowed
tocommentonthataccount,andwhoownsthedata.1

Conclusion

1. Inarecentsessionofareadinggrouponnarrativemethods,I
raisedasimilarquestionfordiscussion.Theparticipantsinthe
grouprespondedtomyquestionbyexplainingtometheprocedurefor
creatingaconsentform,andwhatitwasfor.Havingalreadygained
ethicalapprovalbythereviewteam,IpointedoutthatIknewabout
hat,butwasaskingamorephilosophicalquestionaboutwhoownsthe
stories,andwhethertheanalysisshouldbesubjecttothesamekinds
ofethicalrestrictionsastheproductionofthedatausuallyare.I
wasquiteastoundedthatmyquestionsweremetwithresolute
responsesfromallthemembersofthegroupthatitistheresearcher
whoownsthedata.Theywarnedme(IfeelIwasexperiencingfirst
handthelackofcredibilityassociatedwithareflexiveappraoch)
aboutthedangersthatPhdresearchersfacewithparticipants
withdrawingtheirdataonlydaysbeforetheresearcher'sviva.They
allknewpeoplewhothishadhappenedto,butwereunabletoname
them.Perhapsforethicalreasons.Inthesamesession,oneofthe
grouptalkedofhowshehadbeeninterviewedforsomePhdresearch
andhadbeenangeredbecausetheresearcherwouldnotletheruseher
ownnameandinsistedonasynonym.Iaskedher,then,whethershe
feltthatinthiscase,thedatawereinfactpartownedbyher,the
participant.Myquestionwasmetwithsomedismissivemumbles.