Narrative As A Research Tool: Application Research In Stuttering

[ Contents | Next | Previous | Up ]


Nicely done!

From: Ken St. Louis
Date: 10/8/01
Time: 11:39:53 AM
Remote Name: 157.182.12.51

Comments

Dear Harsha,

I have just taken the time to print out, highlight, and read carefully your outstanding article. You have reviewed some very important concepts as they relate to cracks that seem to be appearing increasingly in the paradigms of our dominant science as it relates to stuttering. Walt Manning and others has begun to mention some of the same concerns in a forthcoming article. I must confess I am more comfortable in the traditional paradigm than in the realities of qualitative research, if for no other reason it is clear when a study is finished! Nevertheless, as you know, I agree with you that it is time that we begin to listen to people who stutter if we wish to truly understand them.

You graciously referenced my new book that has 25 narratives told by people who stutter, indicating that such stories have been regarded as anecdotal pieces outside of a clear research frame. Interestingly, I *began* the project from a research perspective, trying to use qualitative strategies to uncover some valid and reliable hints about the range of real experiences, negative to positive, that stand out in the minds of people who stutter. I am still in the process of carrying out lexical analyses, content analyses, and theme analyses, but none of them seemed to capture the richness of the narratives like simply letting them speak for themselves. That is precisely why I wrote the book.

One question always nags me, though. How can we be sure that our lens (e.g., your notion of "plotting" the life history narrative into a "story") does not distort the meaning that the subject (stutterer) intends? For example, unlike the negative themes identified by Corcoran and Stewart (1998), many of the stories that my subjects told were more like your examples from Nhlanhla. Stuttering, though experienced as painful at certain parts of their lives, served a much larger purpose as motivator, teacher, or challenger to become better, stronger, more caring persons. Depending on how a researcher/clinician characterizes a person's story, her or she might miss the critical difference between such concepts as "suffering" and "sacrifice" or "knowledge" and "wisdom."

Any more ideas on how not to misrepresent a person's true meaning in narrative research?

Ken


Last changed: September 12, 2005