While reading “Situating Narrative Inquiry,” there were a few key excerpts that triggered something inside of me and cause me to create dialogue with the text. Please allow me to present the quote and then offer my thoughts in purple italics:
“So while researchers have new respect for the human in the subjects they study, they continue to perceive themselves as capable of being objective” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 11).
“In this discourse, as researchers we continued to act in our role as researchers as if we were capable of remaining in some way intellectually and objectively separate from what we were studying— we did not remove the boundaries we had drawn around ourselves as researchers. We felt that in our role as researchers the self was unchangeable” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 12).
We are not robots who view everything in one of two spheres: black or white. As humans we contradict the components necessary to be objective by dictionary definition. Certainly, we can try to base our decision on facts, yet we would be lying if we said our conclusions are “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudices” (dictionary.com). Through considering the role of judge or jury, we as humans, even when “putting energy into maintaining an objective stance” ( 12) insert our own moral compass and experience before rendering a verdict. Therefore, I find it more credible to say “the researcher and the researched in a particular study are in relationship with each other and that the parties will learn and change in the encounter” ( 9) because “humans and human interaction exists in context” ( 11). Essentially for humans the objective lens is always accompanied by the subjective lens.
The previous paragraph was written when I had only read up until page 12, so when I made it through the complete reading, I was thrilled that the text was conversing with me and supporting my argument. This occurred on page 15 with the idea of the “implausibility of being truly distant” and again in the conclusion where the authors argue that you cannot dispose of the “nonneutrality of curiosity and interest” (29).
“[Piaget] focused not on numbering the answers but on the children’s explanations (words) about their understanding of particular events” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 16) – a quote in reference to the Stanford-Binet intelligence test.
Student Teaching reinforced this concept for me. Children come at problems from all different angles, and while their answers on an objective test may be wrong, if asked to explain their reasoning in oral or written fashion, they often have perfectly intelligent logic. This goes to show that numbers cannot account for all reasons, for language must accompany those numbers.
“When the audience is presented with numeric findings, the reader must provide a narrative to explain and capture the relationships presented with statistical values” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 20).
“It is interesting to consider that not only should numbers be accompanied by words, but also words should be accompanied by numbers. As stated in the article, formulas, charts, graphs, and tables must be accompanied by words in order for relationships to be established and explained. Likewise, writing needs a sense of numbers, not in the traditional or literal sense, but in code. This code is known as sequence. Sequence words (first, next, then, last) serve the purpose of numbers in that they keep each occurrence “independent, interchangeable, and equal” (18). The difference between numbers and words in my opinion is that in writing, words can ground sentences making them dependent, contradictory, and even disproportionate. I believe the key is to use numbers and words together only when they serve to complement one another and offer a better explanation than providing words or numbers alone.
While my quotes are only concerned with the first two turns: 1) relationship of researcher and researched and 2) from numbers to words as data, I am not discounting the importance of turn 3) from the general to the particular of turn 4) blurring knowing. I will, however, say that turn 3 came as a given. Clearly more understanding comes from a more focused lens. Although, turn 4 I feel I still need some explanation of epistemology, or maybe I’m making too much of what I don’t completely understand and I do have a good grasp. Ultimately, I enjoyed this article for his depth and perspective despite its length.
“So while researchers have new respect for the human in the subjects they study, they continue to perceive themselves as capable of being objective” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 11).
“In this discourse, as researchers we continued to act in our role as researchers as if we were capable of remaining in some way intellectually and objectively separate from what we were studying— we did not remove the boundaries we had drawn around ourselves as researchers. We felt that in our role as researchers the self was unchangeable” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 12).
We are not robots who view everything in one of two spheres: black or white. As humans we contradict the components necessary to be objective by dictionary definition. Certainly, we can try to base our decision on facts, yet we would be lying if we said our conclusions are “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudices” (dictionary.com). Through considering the role of judge or jury, we as humans, even when “putting energy into maintaining an objective stance” ( 12) insert our own moral compass and experience before rendering a verdict. Therefore, I find it more credible to say “the researcher and the researched in a particular study are in relationship with each other and that the parties will learn and change in the encounter” ( 9) because “humans and human interaction exists in context” ( 11). Essentially for humans the objective lens is always accompanied by the subjective lens.
The previous paragraph was written when I had only read up until page 12, so when I made it through the complete reading, I was thrilled that the text was conversing with me and supporting my argument. This occurred on page 15 with the idea of the “implausibility of being truly distant” and again in the conclusion where the authors argue that you cannot dispose of the “nonneutrality of curiosity and interest” (29).
“[Piaget] focused not on numbering the answers but on the children’s explanations (words) about their understanding of particular events” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 16) – a quote in reference to the Stanford-Binet intelligence test.
Student Teaching reinforced this concept for me. Children come at problems from all different angles, and while their answers on an objective test may be wrong, if asked to explain their reasoning in oral or written fashion, they often have perfectly intelligent logic. This goes to show that numbers cannot account for all reasons, for language must accompany those numbers.
“When the audience is presented with numeric findings, the reader must provide a narrative to explain and capture the relationships presented with statistical values” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 20).
“It is interesting to consider that not only should numbers be accompanied by words, but also words should be accompanied by numbers. As stated in the article, formulas, charts, graphs, and tables must be accompanied by words in order for relationships to be established and explained. Likewise, writing needs a sense of numbers, not in the traditional or literal sense, but in code. This code is known as sequence. Sequence words (first, next, then, last) serve the purpose of numbers in that they keep each occurrence “independent, interchangeable, and equal” (18). The difference between numbers and words in my opinion is that in writing, words can ground sentences making them dependent, contradictory, and even disproportionate. I believe the key is to use numbers and words together only when they serve to complement one another and offer a better explanation than providing words or numbers alone.
While my quotes are only concerned with the first two turns: 1) relationship of researcher and researched and 2) from numbers to words as data, I am not discounting the importance of turn 3) from the general to the particular of turn 4) blurring knowing. I will, however, say that turn 3 came as a given. Clearly more understanding comes from a more focused lens. Although, turn 4 I feel I still need some explanation of epistemology, or maybe I’m making too much of what I don’t completely understand and I do have a good grasp. Ultimately, I enjoyed this article for his depth and perspective despite its length.