1887
Volume 25, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6740
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9935
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Narrative researchers need to carefully consider if and how they represent the words and worlds of people/s who do not yet have the power to represent themselves. This paper explores the dialectic of speaking or Others, and posits that making manifest the co-constructed nature of narrative research to both research participants and research audiences can address some of the ideological, political, and ethical considerations involved in re-presenting the narratives of Other/ed people. In particular, it identifies that artistic forms of communication enable the researcher to speak Other/ed research participants by making explicit the dialogic nature of narrative re-presentation, and can fully engage audiences in the content of narrative research so that the stories of Other/ed people get heard. Therefore, it’s posited that the form of academic communication is central to the debate about whether/how we might re-present Other/ed stories.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ni.25.2.06cri
2016-06-20
2019-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alcoff, L
    (2006) Visible identities (1st ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/0195137345.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/0195137345.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alcoff, L.M
    (2009) The problem of speaking for others. In A.Y. Jackson & L.A. Mazzei (Eds.), Voice in qualitative inquiry: Challenging conventional, interpretive, and critical conceptions in qualitative research (pp.117–135). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnot, A. , & Reay, D
    (2007) A sociology of pedagogic voice: Power, inequality and pupil consultation. Discourses: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3), 311–325. doi: 10.1080/01596300701458814
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300701458814 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barone, T
    (2000) Aesthetics, politics, and educational inquiry: Essays and examples. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bertram, V
    (1998) Theorising the personal: Using autobiography in academic writing. In J. Jackson & J. Jones (Eds.), Contemporary feminist theories (pp. 232–246). Edinburgh, UK: University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chase, S
    (1996) Personal vulnerability and interpretive authority in narrative research. In R. Josselson (Ed.), Ethics and process in the narrative study of lives (pp. 22–44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cole, A.L. , & Knowles, G.J
    (2008) Arts-informed research. In G.J. Knowles & A.L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research. Perspectives methodologies, examples and issues (pp. 55–70). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781452226545.n5
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226545.n5 [Google Scholar]
  8. de Mello, D.M
    (2007) The language of arts in a narrative inquiry landscape. In D.J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp.203–221). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781452226552.n8
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226552.n8 [Google Scholar]
  9. Deleuze, G. , & Guattari, F
    (1987) A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis. MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ewing, R. , & Hughes, J
    (2008) Arts-informed inquiry in teacher education: Contesting the myths. European Education Research Journal, 7(4), 512–522. doi: 10.2304/eerj.2008.7.4.512
    https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2008.7.4.512 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fine, M. , & Weis, L
    (2002) Writing the ‘‘wrongs’’ of fieldwork: Confronting our own research/writing dilemmas in urban ethnographies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The qualitative inquiry reader (pp.267–298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Guttorm, H
    (2012) Becoming-(a)-paper, or an article undone: (Post-)knowing and writing (again), nomadic and so messy. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(7), 595–605. doi: 10.1177/1077800412450157
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412450157 [Google Scholar]
  13. Josselson, R
    (2004) The hermeneutics of faith and the hermeneutics of suspicion. NarrativeInquiry, 14(1), 1–29. doi: 10.1075/ni.14.1.01jos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.14.1.01jos [Google Scholar]
  14. (2007) The ethical attitude in narrative research. In D.J. Clandinin , (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry (pp.537–565). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781452226552.n21
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226552.n21 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lather, P
    (1991) Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Loch, S
    (2014) Unfolding becoming: An invitation into the future imaginings of middle school girls, interlaced with my own journey to researcher. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Brisbane, AU: Queensland University of Technology. doi: 10.14264/uql.2014.195
    https://doi.org/10.14264/uql.2014.195 [Google Scholar]
  17. Lyotard, J
    (1984) The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Mann, S.A. , & Kelly, L.R
    (1997) Standing at the crossroads of modernist thought: Collins, Smith, and the new feminist epistemologies. Gender & Society, 11(4), 391–408. doi: 10.1177/089124397011004002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/089124397011004002 [Google Scholar]
  19. McCann, C. , & Kim, S
    (2003) Feminist theory reader: Local and global perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. McLeod, J
    (1997) Narrative and psychotherapy. London, UK: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Minh-ha, T.T
    (1989) Woman, native, other: Writing postcoloniality and feminism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Minh-ha, T.T. (Director), & Bourdier, J.-P
    (Co-producer) (1982) Reassemblage: From the firelight to the screen [Motion Picture]. Senegal.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Neilsen, L
    (1998) Knowing her place: Research literacies and feminist occasions. San Francisco, CA: Caddo Gap Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Nielsen, L
    (2002) Learning from the liminal: Fiction as knowledge. Alberta Journal of Education Research, 48(3), 206–214. Retrieved fromajer.synergiesprairies.ca/ajer/index.php/ajer/article/viewFile/326/318
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Payne, R
    (2009) Trin T. Hinh-ha: Moving Forward. Accessedfromtcuwomensnetwork.wordpress.com/2009/11/on8 April 2016.
  26. Richardson, L
    (1990) Writing strategies: Reaching diverse audiences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (1997) Skirting a pleated text: De-disciplining an academic life. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 295–303. doi: 10.1177/107780049700300303
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049700300303 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2000) Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin , & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed. pp.923–948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Shklovsky, V
    (1965) Art as technique. In L.T. Lemon & M.J. Reis (Eds.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp. 3–24). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sikes, P. , & Gale, K
    (2006) Narrative approaches to educational research. Retrieved fromwww.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/narrative/narrativehome.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Smythe, W.E. , & Murray, M.J
    (2000) Owning the story: Ethical considerations in narrative research. Ethics & Behavior, 10(4), 311–336. doi: 10.1207/S15327019EB1004_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1004_1 [Google Scholar]
  32. Spivak, G.C
    (1987) In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics. London: Taylor and Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (1998) Can the subaltern speak?In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretations of culture (pp. 271–313). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Stanovsky, D
    (1997) Speaking as, speaking for and speaking with: The pitfalls and possibilities of men teaching feminism. Feminist Teacher, 11(1), 10–19. Retrieved fromwww.jstor.org/stable/40545770
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Treblicot, J
    (1988) Dyke methods, or principles for the discovery/creation of the withstanding. Hypatia, 3(2), 1–13. Retrieved fromwww.jstor.org/stable/3809948 doi: 10.1111/j.1527‑2001.1988.tb00065.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1988.tb00065.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Wu, C
    (2013) Gender as a category of analysis: Reconciling feminist theory with feminist methodology. Graduate Journal of Social Science, 10(3), 38–53. Retrieved fromgjss.org/sites/default/files/issues/Journal-10-03_Full-Issue.pdf#page=38
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ni.25.2.06cri
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error