Group+April+2

Group: Melissa B., Christine, Amy, Melissa P., Meghan, Clarice, Sarah, Pam, Nicole

Gordon, E., McKibbin, K., Vasudevan, L., & Vinz, R. (2007). Writing out of the unexpected: Narrative inquiry and the weight of small moments. //English Education, 39//(4), 326-351.

HILLER'S COMMENTS ARE IN ALL CAPS.
Gordon et al. conducted their research in an effort to answer many questions. Primarily, they were interested in studying students as authors. This led them to seek out funding for a publishing house for high school students. As they also had an interest in corrections education, they partnered with a high school with incarcerated students. This partnership helped them answer their questions related to attitudes toward writing and the power of a story. The was no real literature review of relevant articles to situate the study in the larger research community. However, the authors did draw heavily from the work of Bahktin and his concept of dialogism - the idea that multiple discourses can be created within one story. It is unclear as to if this section is supposed to represent the literature review, or set up the alignment of their study. A hybrid literature review, perhaps? The researchers also wanted to document the Student Press Initiative publishing project they had embarked upon. Their qualitative analysis of this project forms the basis for their narrative inquiry. The authors wanted students to have the opportunity to write for writing's sake, for communicative purposes rather than for a grade in a teacher's class. This objective led to the creation of the SPI and garnered the seed money for start up.
 * I. RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY**

Obviously, this is narrative inquiry as the authors state. The research setting is Horizon Academy, a high school for incarcerated young men over 18, located on Rikers Island, NY. It seems that Dr. Vasudevan's interest in corrections education and literacy education is how the participants came to be selected for the research study. Participants were chosen by their teachers at the school and "were male, mostly African-American or Latino" (p. 338). Each person involved in the research project wrote their own version/interpretation of an unexpected moment during the project. The layering of the stories made evident the different perspectives, subjectivities, and interpretations that people have when viewing an event through their own lens. Oral interviews were conducted at the beginning of the project. Data was gathered through informal conversations, writing conferences, various stages of editing (p. 338), audio recorded conversations (p. 339) and the researchers' field notes and journal entries. The researchers told the story of Jermaine and his illumination of his past history from their varying perspectives. Their reflexive re-telling also showed how the process of oral history in an institutional setting works. -The researchers really should have described the process they used to create the interview protocol as part of best practice in qualitative research. This omission is heightened in light of the conclusions drawn from the study of Jermaine's storying from the 4 different viewpoints. GOOD POINT. AGREED!
 * II. CRITIQUE OF RESEARCH METHODS**

WHY DO YOU THINK THIS IS CALLED A NARRATIVE INQUIRY RATHER THAN SIMPLY A QUALITATIVE STUDY OR ETHNOGRAPHY? Ethnography has definitive characteristics that classify it as such, while this feels to be more loosely defined and thus, the researcher has more freedom with the output.

The authors told their individual stories and searched for common themes amongst their stories in order to interpret data. They came to two conclusions: 1. "the importance of disrupting the victory narrative that dominates discussions of the use of narratives with marginalized youth" (p. 347) and 2. "concerning stories as representations" (p. 348). I think this second conclusion is about how stories are representations of truth that simultaneously create a full picture while also containing gaps. It seems that the conclusions drawn from the data analysis serve to justify both the project at Rikers and the researchers' narrative inquiry methodology. In addition, the researchers sought to understand and illustrate their own reactions to the oral histories, and, particularly, to Jermaine's re-telling of his criminal activities. Their reactions helped provide insight for the reader and demonstrated that the stories represented not only the students' past, but the researchers' understanding of that past. As they write: "Storying the lives of others is not an isolated activity or task and is laden with interpretive results" (p. 347). The authors felt that retelling the stories would create a deeper understanding of the discourses during this process. They acknowledged that "no one story can carry the weight of the meaning (p. 347)." It was noted that this type of research does not lead to a conclusion, rather it articulates ambiguities. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS AS A RESEARCH STANCE? Personally, I do not prefer this end result. It seems as though there is no stance. Give me a definitive conclusion! That is the 'so what'!
 * III. CRITIQUE OF DATA ANALYSIS**

The analysis that the researchers failure to bracket their own goals in the students' storying had unduly affected the nature of the " official" stories produced is apt, but had Jermaine not finished earlier than others prompting the informal waiting period, the researchers would not have the data - the "unofficial" storying that fuels the analysis. This accidental analysis cannot be credited by design. What is more surprising is that the researchers seems 'surprised' at the interaction of the participant and their own input into the narrative - author's 'reflexivity' in this type of qualitative research is a 'given' and should always be bracketed or addressed openly prior to the research beginning. ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT THEY WERE SURPRISED?

The researchers analyzed their process and reflectively looked back on the experience. They discovered several conclusions: 1) oral storytelling disrupts the "victory narrative" (p. 347) that incarcerated youth tell; and 2) stories have multiple truths and layers. This discussion section at the end of the four-person narrative allowed for a repetition of their key points and closer analysis of the narrative as inquiry method. The authors call attention to a compelling, alternate means of approaching research: " The recent calls for narrative inquiry invoke the need to question rather than work from hypotheses, listen rather than categorize, and present ambiguities rather than certainties. These are the overt characteristics of storying research" (p. 349).
 * IV. CRITIQUE OF DISCUSSION**

I found it interesting that the authors admit on p. 347 that both the power and potential of the students' authorship, while at the core of this project, was complicated by their (the researchers') own desires and expectations - as if they were saying that the students' true stories were not validated by the researchers because of their own expectations. That was my interpretation anyway. GOOD INSIGHT. It bothered me that Jermaine's story was actually left out. I'm sure there were confidentiality issues that required them to not re-tell it, but the obtuse nature of their reaction left me scratching my head. I wanted to know what happened! Did he kill someone? Why couldn't they say? Their lack of revelation of what Jermaine's story actually WAS (and why two of them wanted to cry) made the entire study seem shrouded in mystery. I AGREE! I felt the same way! I kept hoping they would indicate why his stories "that cold December day" could not be told there. I assume what he said was either not appropriate for EJ or certain things could not be stated due to legal reasons. Oh - I thought the issue was how he would always order Chinese delivery knowing that he had no intention of paying for it. Then he would waylay the delivery person and 'steal' his order, often assaulting the deliverer in the process. I found myself reading this article very differently than previous ones. I was so wrapped up in the story, I wasn't paying as much attention to the specific research elements. I THINK THAT IS THE AFFECT OF THE NARRATIVE APPROACH. One part that I found myself contemplating was when Kerry is retelling her perspective and points out the bias towards stories the researchers wanted to hear. I am wondering if this is a challenge of all qualitative research...not just to be aware with how the study is written but to be aware that the bias can be present in the questions we ask the participants and this may not be evident until much later in the process. One of the requirements in writing up qualitative research is to address 'positionality' or what we've discussed as 'bracketing' - which these researchers apparently failed to do until their inadvertent discovery of their 'researcher effect' via Jermaine's 'unofficial' storying. It makes me wonder if the PHI project was undertaken more as teacher-led action research rather than IRB approved and peer reviewed resear ch; otherwise, surely they would have foreseen this in advance? BRACKETING IS ESSENTIAL IN THIS TYPE OF RESEARCH!
 * V. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS (QUESTIONS/CONFUSIONS??)**
 * The authors describe Jermaine's unexpected story as more "real" because it was not in response to their questions. I think that perhaps they realized that the project was framed to get the stories that they wanted. When you read how Jermaine's unexpected and yet more authentic story was received it is not surprising that he hid it. Perhaps more private "audience-less" stories would have been more authentic and helpful for the participants. **