new perspectives on my inquiry...

Following hot on the heels of my last blog post, I needed to put some thoughts down before I was distracted. As often happens. But that's another topic. I attended the launch of a new 'cultural partnership' between Northumbria University and the RSA (last night, and it got me thinking, hence the post.

In case you're not familiar, the RSA describe themselves in the following way:

"For over 250 years the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) has been a cradle of enlightenment thinking and a force for social progress.  Our approach is multi-disciplinary, politically independent and combines cutting edge research and policy development with practical action."

So - I mentioned the impact on my thinking. I've previously noted that the research process can involve multiple changes in perspective, 're framings' or lines of inquiry. One subtle but important shift for me is happening at the moment, or perhaps it is a realisation of something I always found important, but have not yet been too conscious of. 

As I listened to Mathew Taylor (Chief Executive of the RSA) and Professor Steven Kiffin talk about innovation, creativity, co-operation and so on I realised that these themes really resonated for me. For a further examination of these, follow the link provided above to the RSA site, it's one example of an inspiration (but that does not mean I've signed up to their whole agenda, as it's a broad collection of thinkers).


As I sat listening, I realised what I wanted to avoid in my narrative study into professional identity. I realised that rather than a static, historical, archaeological description of 'told professional lives' I wanted to capture some of that sense of innovation, creativity, improvisation and adaptation that I find in my own narrative in relation to circumstances. I realise this puts an emphasis on agency rather than the influence of structure (and I'm interested in narratives addressing the interplay of these) but it allowed me to think of a study that had some energy and movement. 

Of course, I've made a careful 'note to self' - which is that I want to work with the stories of others, and their meanings; but as someone who is locating himself in the narrative inquiry (and as someone who is shaping the research questions) I have at least found a fresh sense of connection and purpose to the study. What I don't know is how my own narrative will weave with the rest.

finding a research voice

It's early stages (how long can I keep saying that?) but I feel like I'm reaching a first 'plateau' in my ownership of my study. Reflecting on the past few months (and nearly a year since I started reading with a purpose) I note a hesitancy to talk about anything with certainty, to take a confident position on authors or to talk about my research with clarity. Although I will no doubt chart the development of these again, for now I am pleased I have some 'handle' on what I am doing. This is different from putting a proposal together, or even being able to name main reference points - this is something about that slow, intangible, messy process whereby I've shuffled and re shuffled thoughts, felt comfortable with questions and uncertainty and feel strongly about some strands or markers along the way. This has been supported through conversation, especially through the #phdchat community on twitter which is proving so useful.

Part of my momentum has come from a connection between the type of study I know I am doing and my professional background. I'm nearly forty (gasp) and have had the pleasure of working with children and young people in community organisations, churches, local authorities and in my own business. I've been in the 'people' business for a while, from a broadly community development and creative perspective. I now realise that I've valued and worked my own with people's stories. My work has been about understanding people in their contexts and where they are (or want to) go. I have found a real resonance with narrative inquiry and that's providing some new found momentum. I'm not 'wired' for complete objectivity and positivist research, but I do love making sense of personal journeys and finding themes, tensions and questions within them.

Of course, PhD study means reading things as part of the process, so I've just been reading "Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research" by D. Jean Clandinnin and F. Michael Connely, published by Jossey-Bass in 2000. It's a classic narrative text and very easy reading (compared to some others I have on the go in territory of pragmatism, identity and so on!). Here's my short list of things I loved about it:

• Narrative inquiry deals with real people, their instability, change and shifting stories.
• The inquirer is (usually) located fairly clearly in the research process, so there is an opportunity to weave in my 'position' (as opposed to 'pretending' I have nothing to do with these conversations and interpretations). 
• The inquiry is careful to note the conditions of temporality, location and generally a note about how things we study are 'in the making'.
• there are reflections with Schon's (1983, 1987, 1991) 'knowing in action' which does not separate 'thinking' and 'doing'.
• It has challenged my to reject what Popper called the 'myth of the framework' - in other ways, to develop a relationship with theory that does not lead the study, but offers itself as a resource for a conversation between itself and real lived experience. That's not a universal rule for those of you working with other approaches, but it's needed in narrative inquiry.
• The authors' suggestion that I be aware of my own autobiographical account and try out telling my own story is helpful to me - so I can be aware of my own 'positioning' in the study, and consequently the stories and meanings others have that may be similar and different.
• I like the discussion of 'tensions' throughout narrative inquiry especially around the role of theory, relationship with participants, finding a 'voice in the text' and so on.
• I like the clarity the authors have about writing field texts as a guard against 'smoothing' stories in the re telling and in being able to relate the many strands I will collect as I go on.
• Lastly (I've got to wrap up somewhere for now) I liked the need to tell and re tell my 'questions' of my inquiry, knowing that engagement with the field will change these - but getting them out there is key to my own understanding of what puzzles me and where I am at in the 'search'.

Postscript: I'm drafting an article for journal submission at the moment and awful as the process has been to get writing again, it has been really helpful in sparking my interest in writing. I'm learning to suspend the self critical voice (for now) and just 'do it'. This has also pushed me on.

"identity" as dynamic, relational and emergent.

Like many part time PhD students, I wish I had (spent?) a little more time reading this Christmas, but at least I've made some progress. I've just read a book recommended by my supervisor: "Making Identity Matter" by Robin Williams. Of course, my 'reading' of this text is my own and I'm sure does not fully reflect the authors perspectives - that's the disclaimer. As I'm in the foothills of my literature review, I find texts like these helpful in orientating me to major perspectives and issues - in this case, in relation to the huge subject of 'identity'.

If you are one of the three people who has read previous posts (joking) then you might remember that I'm looking at narratives of professional identity in 'emergent' forms of UK children's services - such as Sure Start Children's Centres. I'm interested in how individuals reshape their own professional identities in these contexts, and their relation to and use of other people and social objects, including symbol systems, rules and so on. It's less of a meta theory of identity creation in these contexts and more of an examination of the detail of the 'micro' level dynamics - working with participants to understand the 'black box' of identity reshaping and 'learning' to be in these new contexts. So; an introduction and orientation to issues of identity is required as you can imagine.

For anyone who has read around the issue of identity you will know you could do this for years and still not appreciate the nuances and arguments. Thank goodness I'm not studying to be an encyclopedia. Having taken my first journey through identity land, I've found a number of useful perspectives I'll note here, if only for my own future reference and deeper digging! I'm leaving out the angles which I found just too pretentious / abstract / cerebral for practical use. See how quickly my prejudices have crept in? Not really, but I may as well be honest that my 'reading' of this text was of course influenced by my own interactionist / pragmatic perspective on human and professional identity. My own view is also that researchers need to give up the idea of pure objectivity and to recognise how their own perspectives may shape their 'readings' and locate them in particular dialogues. Of course, being aware of this is also healthy, so we all can remain challenged by 'other' perspectives. On to some useful headlines, then.

In summary, a review of identity allows us to consider identity as things such as:

• a 'role'
• a performance
• a product of stories well tell
• a result of interaction
• an 'ascription' to social categories
• an illusion 
• ...and so on!

Let's look at some examples of perspectives I think have some use for my study...

As they often do, this book started off by charting 'foundational' philosophies and perspectives. Simplistically 'jumping' past some of these major voices (Descartes, Locke, Hume, Nietzsche and others) I'll briefly point to Hegel. For my purposes (and apologies for the terrible simplification and editing), I'll just say that Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 - 1831) addressed the issue of properties of individuals as things which are constituted in subjective relationships. In addition, he argued that 'consiousness' is bound up with 'others'. His work on the phenomenology of spirit looks to account for the development of human consciousness and self consciousness and gives us some useful leads about the struggle for recognition amongst other things. 

Another 'snapshot' in my random review of ideas I think are useful are those of Antony Giddens and others in relation to the human state in late modernity. Bringing our search into (literally) 'modern' territory, Giddens discusses the complex and contested nature of social life in late modern life. I like his discussion of how, in the light of multiple, complex and contradictory 'versions' of modern life (as opposed to relatively stable and homogeneous pre-industrial society) individuals become 'attuned' to a range of 'incoming information' to enable the reflexive self. He sees relationships ('pure relationships') being used as a mechanism for self disclosure - also as part of this effort to attain 'sense' and reflexivity. Another shockingly simplistic summary.

Moving on, I wasn't surprised to find I 'resonated' with pragmatic perspectives of James, Mead and Dewey who argued that individuals are both 'acting subject' and also both the subjects and objects of their own and others attention. The ability to be an 'object' of ones' own attention for pragmatists enables reflexivity. In this context, 'identity' 'conciousness' or 'self' emerges from an ongoing stream of interaction.

Erving Goffman's famous work on identity features in the review of the subject, and although I found I liked aspects of his work, I found others rather cynical and pessimistic. I'll focus on a snapshot of what I found useful, which was the insight he gave us that 'becoming' a person is also about finding a space provided by local social arrangements, that identity is to one extent or another 'presented' to others with consideration of the audience / stage and so on. His work on the exchange of mutually understood symbols in common rituals also helps contextualise the expression of identity. 

What else looks hopeful? It would be difficult to look at narrative identity without considering the contributions of Ricoeur. Paul Ricoeur is another distinguished philosopher whose work on narrative will no doubt be a subject of much more study for me. In short, Ricoeur discusses identity as a narrative production, arrived at in the telling / re telling of stories about ourselves. His view that narrative expressions of identity draws on culturally available plots, which in turn inform individuals' actions and implies the role / presence of 'others' who are 'told' the story.

Broadly influenced by Nietzsche (as far as I can see), Michel Foucault certainly is important (influential) in terms of contemporary identity studies. His postmodern perspective almost seems a cliche nowadays (I would suggest it's uncritically adopted, ironically). There's lots I question here, but I think Foucault pioneered some important territory in discussing identity as a 'discursive product', a product necessarily seen in historical context, and that identity, amongst other things, is something produced by individuals as they 'make themselves subjects' in a number of ways. His work is helpful in pointing out the 'use' made of external systems and (perhaps) domination's to form identity, and shows the limitations of Cartesian views of identity as something entirely 'internal'.

Of course, any review of one book is partial - but it has helped me make sense of other material I've read so far. It's also been very useful in identifying some potentially important implications for my PhD, which include things like:

• I need to pay attention to the occasioning and patterning of interaction and 'telling' of stories about identity.
• I need to examine the use of categorisation by individuals in positioning and referencing.
• I need to evaluate the nature of rituals and symbolic elements that shape the narrative 'self'.
• I need to understand the changing object of people's narratives, which affects the sort of narrative gets produced.

That's enough for now - but I'd welcome comments where you'd like to add your own views!