One very particular aspect of this research is its presentation of a Learning History based on the perspectives of just one or two people close to the case. With other Learning Histories, researchers have generally interviewed several actors involved in one case and the researcher has then kneaded all these different inputs into a coherent narrative. I’d imagine that making choices in the creation of this coherent narrative puts the researcher in quite a powerful position He/she will necessarily have to move from representation to make interpretive decisions about the final story that is presented.
With this research, as I’m not working with so many stories for an individual Learning History, weaving a coherent narrative has been relatively easy. I stick close to the interviewees’ story and cross-match it with public domain information about the case. It usually tallies pretty well. I still make choices on what to write – but these are more representational. I am generally not judging or balancing between several competing views. And where I interpret, I try to name that and move it into a box or to the side. However this moves rather than avoids the ethical implications of what I’m doing. By choosing to work with just one or two stories, am I not excluding others’ stories altogether? How can I be sure that by amplifying the voice of one person I am squashing the voices of all the others that I didn’t interview?
I was aware of this challenge quite early on. To address it I had the bright idea that after writing the Learning History, I would approach all those who were mentioned in the History and give them the opportunity to comment or add their own perspectives. I imagined that in doing this I would create a virtual pub table. At this virtual pub table, old friends and colleagues would sit around and reminisce, listening to each others’ tales, awaiting their turn to share their memories. As with any round of pub-stories there would be a tolerance for any slight differences there might be in the collective remembering of what had happened. After all I wanted to create an aspect of celebration in this research – I wanted to celebrate the things people had done and as much as possible invite all those involved to feel that sense of achievement through their collective storytelling……
That was the plan. I’ll write more about what actually happened here or in my PhD! If you can anticipate some of the issues that might come up with taking this approach – please do comment.
[Lost? Click here to find out what this blog is about, how to navigate around and how to take part in the conversation]
Comments