4.5 Methodology
As I have mentioned in the description of “narrative analysis” further above (see chapter 4.2), there appeared to be no direct and concrete instructions of how to apply this analysis method into research. However, according to Polkinghorne (1995), narrative inquiry has two approaches in doing analysis, one of which is analysis of narratives, while the other is narrative analysis. The former is based on pragmatic reasoning that corresponds to paradigmatic knowledge, and the latter is based on narrative reasoning that aimed at producing emplotted stories (Polkinghorne, 1995, p. 10-11). From the point of view of the paradigmatic analysis of narratives, common themes or conceptual manifestations among a few stories collected for research can be explored (Polkinghorne, 1995, p. 13). In this sense, in order to see what shared concepts and knowledge could be inductively derived from my collected data, I applied this paradigmatic viewpoint as my first focus for analyzing. The advantage of such an approach lied in its capacity to explore through many collected stories, presenting this study’s rich database with many primary data (see, for example, Polkinghorne, 1995, p. 14-15). On the other hand, because it could also minimize the uniqueness of each story and underestimate the diversity existing among the collected stories (ibid., p. 15), Polkinghorne (1995) mentioned another viewpoint that could fill in such a gap, as narrative analysis. According to him, in this perspective of analyzing, the researcher can present collected data in a way “that unites and gives meaning to the data as contributors to a goal or purpose” (ibid., p. 15). Following from that point, because my research question was about how the study participants’ identities were constructed in their narratives, I found it also necessary to look at each participant’s narrative separately, in terms of the viewpoint of narrative analysis. There were two goals I aimed at applying this viewpoint as my second focus for analyzing. The first goal was that I could reflect the individualistic diversity among each study participant’s narrative about their lived experiences. The second goal was to present each participant’s constructed identity coherently and independently from others’, so that readers could also find these findings as similar to reading storied episodes of each of their lives. Consequently, readers may have a clearer
understanding of the participants’ identities that were comprehended in the scope and context of this study.
In terms of looking at the data with the viewpoint from analysis of narratives, I applied Labov’s (1972) universal structure of narratives that consisted of six components (abstract, orientation, complicating actions/specific events, evaluations, resolutions, codas) (Minami, 2015, p. 79).
The conversations with the study participants were compiled of numerous small stories as narrative units. I analyzed these small stories on the basis of Labov’s (1972) model, and these small stories were categorized into themes, representing shared concepts derived from four study participants’ narratives. I firstly explored patterns and occurrences of these themes throughout the conversations I had with each study participant. I then explored the patterns across all conversations. At the same time, I also evaluated the similarities and differences between the study participant’s narratives under each theme, in correlation with their different backgrounds and life experiences. Such an evaluation assisted me in the next phase of analyzing.
In terms of looking at the data from the viewpoint of narrative analysis, I also took into account the suggestion of other studies about narrative analysis methodology (see, for example, Mishler (2006), De Fina et al. (2015); and see further above in chapter 4.2), to focus on ‘how’ and
‘why’ perspectives. This meant that the content of narratives was not as important here as how narrators structured their narratives, and why narrators told those stories. As Baynham (2015, p. 75) stated, “positioning is a key device in identity work”, how narrators positioned themselves in real world and in the story-world should be kept in consideration then, while analyzing the narratives. Additionally, in accordance with the elaboration about narrative and identity (see further above, in chapter 3.5), the researcher should not forget either, how narrators might establish connections with other narratives about immigration experience, as well as the possible connections with other societal discourses about same topic (De Fina, 2003, p. 30). Through these connections, as the researcher, I might be able to explore the implicit stances narrators took corresponding to social assumptions of who they were (De Fina et al., 2006, p. 356). Furthermore, Georgakopoulou (2006) pointed out that, “analytically, the meeting point of narrative and identity was assumed to be found in the participants’ storytelling roles” (p. 100). He highlighted the emphasis on “how identities come into being as local accomplishments in the course of telling stories” when studying the relationship between identity and narratives (Georgakopoulou, 2006, p. 100). These factors were also considered for narrative analysis phase of the data. Additionally, it is important to note here that each time I
met up with the study participants, our social interactions and contexts were different, in correlations with our previous interactions. Besides, my study participants’ life situations could have also possibly changed since the previous times we met. Moreover, after speaking with me, due to new meanings they might had had comprehended during the conversations, they could be triggered to reflect more upon their life experiences outside of their conversations with me, which could then generate new or different meanings, impacting on how they narrated their stories when they met me again. This corresponded suitably to the post-structuralist theoretical approach towards identity that highlighted the emergence of subjects and their subjectivities, as well as the elusive characteristic of meanings (see further above, in chapter 3.4). Besides, because narratives presented here could be argued to be produced in interview contexts, I additionally took into account the following questions that was suggested for researchers to consider when studying narrative accounts:
a. to what extent narrative contents were driven by the interviewer and to what extent they were proposed by the teller;
b. how genres correlated with other aspects of the interview (for example, habitual narratives may be used by tellers in response to questions to depict experiences that for some reason they do not want to present as personal);
c. what kinds of expectations were openly or implicit negotiated. (De Fina, 2009, p. 255)