Talk:Narrative inquiry

Greetings! Could the bibliography be moved into in-line references?

Greetings fellow Wikipedians. This is a good article and could be even beter if the bibliography be moved into in-line references? That way the references support the claims of this text. Anyone willing to make a first attempt? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, someone said I was vandalizing the page. I'm confused? What do I do. I'm working on it for a class assignment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakdavid18 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zakdavid18. The editor who reverted your changes explained the problem here. Editors should seek consensus for major changes to articles, and all additions must be verifiable, as Wikipedia doesn't accept original research. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See note on your talk page in particular read this which will explain how things work. If you edits are reversed then you discuss them here, you don't put them in again without agreement. Whether you are working on a class assignment or not is irrelevant. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curious why the edit "Narrative inquiry is a form of analysis within qualitative research in the social sciences that dates back to the Chicago School tradition of the early 20th century" was reverted, since it was cited. Actually, we could find citation for this in numerous places. Zakdavid18 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That bit is OK, it was all the other stuff being added in again in disregard of WP:BRD which was the issue ----Snowded ^TALK 21:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions and Comments

I found this article to be an enjoyable reading experience. You presented the information in a manner that was not too wordy, but still carries the connotation of authority which is backed by all your references. I would suggest providing an example of narrative analysis under the Practices section. Your text does a good job of describing what narrative analysis is, but I think that adding a specific example would help the reader better understand this topic. I hope my suggestions are helpful! M.devia.psych. (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused that the Methods section is no longer available. I believe that this is a necessary portion of this article and as such should be included and discussed. This is the only real issue at this time, and I believe that once the Method section is added back to the article it will increase its quality of information. M.devia.psych. (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "section" was a loose summary of one approach. To be included here the section would need to summarise at least the main methods and approaches. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this article flows really well, I would however make sure to include in-depth examples as I am unsure how to actually conduct a narrative analysis, table's or even written examples of narrative analysis being used would be very helpful. The criticisms section looks like it could use some sources, it may be a good idea to add in some more information that you have citations for to add credibility to your wiki article. The article looks good and reads fairly well,however I would make sure to include examples in some sections that are harder to understand so that those new to narrative analysis understand what the text is saying.--Nasachs (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a check regarding your references and I think your article and the information in it is well-cited. (Anson1492 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Guys, please. The talk page of an article is not for general comments about how you like things, its for improving the page. You need to answer the questions raised. You also need to read WP:INDENT this article on how to format your comments on the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK

Methods for narrative inquiry

The listed treatment of narrative inquiry is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all possible methods for narrative inquiry. It is, however, a verifiable listing of some methods of narrative inquiry. This section will need to be added to and contributed to by numerous researchers and various fields to accomplish a complete listing and all possible methods of narrative inquiry. (Anbingham (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Its partial at best and uses a limited number of sources. When I have time tomorrow I will hard edit it. In particular it is not a list of methods, but a sequence of events within a limited range of methods. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, we are verging on a serious conflict with this page. Referring back to Banaticus's earlier comments regarding the need for verifiability and later comments on the Sandbox for this page, the students have strove to meet all of those requirements, many of which overlapped with your comments as well. However, in looking at their citations for the methods, they used a variety of sources, several of which are the second author sources preferred by Wikipedia. Thus, your statement that they have insufficient sources is incorrect. Furthermore, as Banaticus specified on his talk page, Wikipedia does not require them to present ALL positions in the process of developing a page, though it should be noted that their are other methods, which they have done. I am not an expert in Wikipedia, but I am learning quickly and can certainly understand and apply Banaticus's explanations. You and Banaticus clearly disagree on some points of page requirement. In reading through the requirements myself, Banaticus's positions are have better support than yours. Thus, if you edit out content on this page for either of the two reasons above, I will quickly pursue whatever avenues are available to address incorrect application of Wikipedia regulations during editing. I realize that you have been on Wikipedia for quite awhile, which means that you should be setting the standard for appropriate application of regulations, not your own variations. Contrary to your previous statements, I do expect my students to be held to Wikipedia criteria - exactly those criteria. I image you will be quite angry that I am apparently telling you how to edit a student's page; I am not, I am simply specifying what course of action I will take. Heather Adams (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require all perspectives but it does require something far more representative than this very narrow perspective. You need to think about balance and weight for which there are a range of sources. They have also listed stages of one approach to methods rather than listing methods. Editors disagree, there are conflict resolution processes when they do. You may agree with Banaticus which is fine but please don't be silly and suggest that I am using my own variations. Like other editors I am attempting to achieve a balanced encyclopaedia and you would do yourself no harm by removing that statement.

When you put things into the main space other editors will change things, its part of the rich process that is Wikipedia. Its only a conflict if you make it so: I suggest you don't.. Feel free to pursue them as quickly as you like but please remember I am not one of your students and I do have subject matter expertise. You might want to address how you can be teaching this subject without covering some of the major sources, Gabriel for example on the top of the two I have already mentioned. Have you really prepared your students for the task you have set them? ----Snowded ^TALK 16:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have an interdisciplinary qualitative studies graduate certificate, with 6 graduate level classes on working within the qualitative paradigm, along with several published qualitative studies, so I am quite knowledgeable about the field. More specifically related to narrative inquiry, my presentation on utilizing narrative inquiry methods, as derived from Labov & Polkinghorne, to develop understandings of developmental processes, was accepted by the 2011 Narrative Inquiry Conference, associated with the leading peer review journal Narrative Inquiry. This conference has a 30% acceptance rate, so it is quite rigorous. Perhaps our differences in ideas of major sources is due to differences in the topic area in which we apply these methods. In looking through your work, you clearly apply some different approaches, a couple of which I find intriguing. However, I work and am teaching this class in the social sciences, where Polkinghorne is considered foundational, as is Riessman and Atkinson. Thus, working within the field of qualitative social sciences, these are the authors appropriate to cite. I find it interesting that you critique the sources my students are using, but do not reference any articles from the leading peer reviewed journal, Narrative Inquiry; indeed you do not cite any sources by any of the editors or major contributors to that journal.

Perhaps there is a miscommunication regarding the goals of Wikipedia Education Outreach. I was explicitly told that this would be an acceptable project for undergraduate students and first year graduate students working with a new topic area. The emphasis was placed on them making contributions that would contribute to a complete page - not be responsible for completing the entire page themselves. In terms of the students moving their work live while still in progress, I quote from the Wikipedia article on teaching essays: "Many instructors who design Wikipedia assignments encourage their students to draft their articles away from the public gaze, and to upload them to the encyclopedia's public pages only after they are ready for general scrutiny. Such contributions are often deleted because they do not follow Wikipedia's guidelines. More importantly, we feel that this approach misses one of the greatest benefits of a Wikipedia assignment: engaging with a community of writers and readers. Having students edit Wikipedia in real time teaches them how to negotiate with an entire community of fellow readers and editors." This same position is echoed in the article Advice on Using Wikipedia in College and Universities. Thus, you critique that they should not be moving their work live until it is fully completed is contrary to the goals and specifications of the Wikipedia Education Outreach. Similarly, looking at the site Advice on Using Wikipedia in College and Universities, under specification of the Wikipedia genre the following points are listed:

1) The ideal Wikipedia article is a well-written distillation of secondary sources on a given topic. It does not advance a thesis or argument. - the students have used several secondary sources, nor do they advance a thesis or argument, so they comply with this points

2) In this sense, the genre of the encyclopedia article is very different from that of the typical student assignment. It will have no introduction or conclusion; rather, it will have a lead followed by a series of elements that are all descriptive or expository, designed to explain, not convince.- they have followed these points as well, describing & explaining the various methods of narrative inquiry, not attempting to present one approach as better than another.

3) Any contribution that does not obey these conventions will very quickly be under fire for what in Wikipedia terminology is described variously as original research or flouting the site's neutral point of view policy. - as they have met the two criteria above, it seems that then their articles should not be charged with either of these flaws.

4) Though Wikipedia does prize fine writing, clarity, and precision, it values even more what it terms verifiability, that is, the use of high-quality or "reliable" sources. This insistence on sources is largely an understandable response to the fact that anyone can contribute to an article: in lieu of expertise or credentials, Wikipedia relies on verifiability. As a result, however, Wikipedia articles often have far more citations than is customary in academic writing. - again, my students have cited each point carefully and have used a variety of sources.

To review, each of the student pages meets these three parts of the genre as they are presented and recommend to instructors; use of secondary sources when possible, do not present an argument that one approach or process is better than the others, and verifiability through careful citation and use of multiple sources. If you feel these points are too lenient, I suggest you take it up with the appropriate Wikipedia group. To hold my students to criteria other then these, to repeatedly take down their work when it meets these criteria is not in keeping with this page as an education site.

In closing, I do not wish to make this a point of conflict, but your innuendo that I am not competent in my field and your suggestion that I not pursue this matter further will not alter my actions. Please abide by the specifications set out in the article above as the students continue to work in a education site the duration of the semester.Heather Adams (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to cool it, especially as I have not made the edits yet and will not until tomorrow. I am not challenging the value of the sourced material they have provided but I am saying its not complete (but not that it has to be fully comprehensive). I have given the names of three authors who are major figures in this field who are not even referenced. They are also published in multiple high reputation journals; we are not limited to one. There are also sources that summarise the field that we should draw on - I have those at home and will look at them at the weekend and make some more amendments then. I've given them references that move outside the range of authors and approaches that you have chosen to teach. I am incidentally more than entitled to the view that you should teach those authors without you complaining of innuendo. I am also of the view that the students have not been properly prepared for this assignment and have made some suggestions as to how this could be improved. The issue is one of balance and weight not citation per se (that has been corrected). There are also some very simple issues that they are failing to address. In particular the fact that they have listed stages of one method, rather than summarising methods. They are also not responding to comments and questions which is not good in wikipedia terms.

Neither by the way have I suggested that you don't persue the matter further, I have said you are welcome to but I do suggest you look at the content changes I make and address those within WIkipedia policy first. . I'd prefer your students to make the changes first by the way, but that is up to them.----Snowded ^TALK 23:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden is quite right. Type "narrative methods" into google scholar. If you read that top-ranked book you'll see why you are blind to the field if you don't know Czarniawska, Boje, & Gabriel... your implication that what he's drawing your attention to is somehow outside of 'social science' is ridiculous Saylors (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have to link me with Denning :-( ----Snowded ^TALK 11:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahahahaha I thought you would get a chuckle out of that :-D Saylors (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saylors, unfortunately, the full conversation about this disagreement is not all on this page, but also partially on Snowded's talk page. There you will see that as he and I discussed this issue, I expressed interest in the new sources and my own surprise that I had not been introduced to some of those texts during my training. As I state below, in retrospect part of the frustration that I expressed above was the sense of being caught between two conflicting views - one that encourages incorporating Wikipedia pages construction within classroom assignments and the view by others that the approach is inappropriate. I am not sure what the resolution to this issue is, but I was frustrated by finding my class in the middle of an unanticipated conflict of differences of perspectives of where Wikipedia is going and what is best for the site. Heather Adams (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Methods section

I think the current version is a good synthesis of different methods from different primary scholarly contributors to the topic, and that everything is is all nicely referenced. Snowded maintains that the current version doesn't go into enough depth and should be deleted until a better revision of all methods (or at least more methods) has been created. Banaticus (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to myself so the RFC bot won't have too much to copy/paste. For more on the various discussions that have taken place here, please see: this discussion on my talk page (now archived), User talk:Anbingham/sandbox, User talk:Snowded#Narrative Inquiry, User talk:Snowded#Students, and User talk:Anbingham#The article you're working on, which I think are all the on-wiki places that the Methods section of this article is discussed. In general, User:Heather Adams and myself seem to have the opposite opinion that User:Snowded has. Banaticus (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please get it right. I don't think it should be deleted but I think it needs significant and major changes to balance it against multiple sources. Some of which I have supplied to the students. However they seem to be working only within the narrow compass of what is taught on their course. If you check my exchanges with Heather you will see that she and her colleagues admit to not being aware of the names of scholars who appear in the Sage Handbook on Narrative Inquiry. I have also said that when I get access to my books on the subject (I am travelling at the moment) I will make substantial changes. Banaticus is rightly focused on his role as mentor to this particular institution on their use of wikipedia, but we need to be aware that our function is to provide a balanced encyclopaedia. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Person So what exactly is going on here, I think it's a bit beyond the scope of an RFC if your expecting us to read tons of sources and determine the current state of the entire article... there needs to be something more manageable that you'd expect uninvolved and people who likely don't care about this article's subject to understand and render an opinion. What is this talk about a school and class, is this some sorta class project to invade this article? So if your expecting anyone to render an opinion here you need to boil it down to something someone who knows nothing about this subject, doesn't have any of these references (since most seem to be offline) can understand and render you an opinion on. Just my two cents here. Also who exactly is this dispute between, just this class and Snowded? — raeky t 22:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A self-avowed 'expert' has her class invading the article and offering "the" method for narrative when there are many contrary takes on how narrative methods should work. Indeed, the article is reads like a under-grad paper on narrative research methods taught by someone that's read Riessman's 1993 and then conducted a little original research. Saylors (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see.. I read some of the talk page discussions Banaticus had with her, seems the students were not following policy and Snowded was maybe a little strict in enforcing it and broke WP:BITE maybe a bit. Since Banaticus seems to be the one running this education thing (something I've never heard of, and something I doubt I'd give any leeway too if I saw an editor from it doing bad edits on articles I watch, so I can't fault Snowded for his actions, lol.) he may have a little bit of a COI with siding with the teacher/students over this issue. It doesn't help the encyclopedia to have some teacher somewhere make an assignment that their students must edit articles on wikipedia. From my experience most college level students don't give a flying fuck about their classes, only enough to pass it, so they're going to do the bare-minimum amount of caring about it. So you're going to get college level essay quality articles out of this, which I don't think helps the encyclopedia if they're writing in technical articles. If they stick to Justin Bieber or other pointless articles that have a much lower bar than scientific/technical articles then it may not be a problem. So as much as my opinion matters, I think Snowded is far more on the side of Wikipedia policy than the teacher/student or the project's promoter. Wikipedia articles and editors need to be 100% in compliance with WP:FIVE and any project that is basically forcing editors who have almost no interest in the articles they're editing since it's just for a grade is a determent to the project as a whole, kind of surprised if this was some sort of official project? — raeky t 16:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this site, my class and my students are getting caught up in an internal issue on Wikipedia - students building and editing Wikipedia pages as part of a class project. I was invited to create a course where students would construct and edit Wikipedia pages for course credit via the American Psychological Society's Wikipedia initiative. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiative If you disagree with having students building and revising Wikipedia pages, you will need to take this up with the administration that is encouraging this process. My frustration in an earlier post is centered around this critique that is outside of my hands to resolve.

In terms of the multiple views in an article, I agree that these are necessary. However, as is common on other pages, the goal was for the students to present a method, clearly labeling it as one of several options, thus adding to the body of knowledge with the intent that others would later add further information. Having reviewed over the Five Pillars, I am still unclear how they violated this. The students did initially post it as "the" method - sloppy thinking and oversimplification, but that has been changed for awhile and indeed I supported Snowded in this critique. I disagree, and I believe Banaticus disagreed with Snowded's apparent insistence that if they could not present all possible methods, they should present none - he insists that this is not what he is saying, but his comments are difficult to interpret in any other way. Snowded did indeed suggest some other sources, and as you can see on his talk page, I agreed that we will look at them and strive to incorporate them. Personally, I am always interested in learning new approaches and as Snowded and I agreed, part of this issue may be the unfortunate narrowing that occurs in some academic fields. However, this is an introductory course to qualitative research, not a narrative inquiry seminar, so the student's expressed knowledge is not, and can not be expected to be exhaustive. Heather Adams (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In sum, I hope to have the students' continue to work on their Wikipedia pages the rest of this semester. I hope that difficulties on this page can be resolved politely and supportively, as they have on other class pages. Heather Adams (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the RfC process, which I was directed here by the bot, is a dispute resolution process. Not a process to render opinion on content for the article. The dispute I think I got a grasp on by reading some of the involved parties talk pages and fairly well summed up above by Heather is pretty clear. The policy that presenting one side of an issue and not the others is WP:NPOV, which is part of our core content policies. If there are multiple well know sides, methods, or opinions then they all should be mentioned with weight given to the most referenced/used/accepted ones, and least weight to fringe ones. As for students being assigned to edit wikipedia, that's not something that would be relevant to a RfC. It's possible that students in such a project might be treated differently (and not in a good way) than a random new editor showing up if it was known that they're a student assigned to edit the article. It takes a certain kind of person who wants to edit and contribute to this ever evolving resource. Just being assigned it, the student may not care about the article beyond getting a non-failing grade on it, and C or D quality work isn't helpful here. I don't know anything about this project, chances are virtually noone at Wikipedia that regularly edits here has ever heard of it, so you're going to be met with people who have all different opinions on if it is a good idea or not. We always need new contributing editors, but being forced to edit generally isn't a good way to get good editors, I wouldn't think, nor do I think it produces quality articles. I think the issue has been long-ago resolved since all parties have pretty much given up discussing it and moved on? Am I correct, or is there still an ongoing issue the RfC needs to address, or can it be closed? — raeky t 02:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am left with the perception that we have mostly resolved these differences, I am not sure the position of others. The students have taken a break to work on some data collection and analysis - so they can gain great insight into the processes they have only learned about textually. They will be back on the page, responding to critiques by others and myself, continuing in their efforts to improve the page. Hopefully this will proceed in a more harmonious manner. Heather Adams (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

I'm removing the entirely un-cited portions of the section, which will then leave it to two sentences. One by some one i've never heard of saying some stuff about how he doesn't understand inductive science and then the other by Boje being critical of the critical position. Saylors (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be suffice to include this information in the introduction rather than having a criticism section? (Anbingham (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Instructor Notes

Overall, this is informative and readable. However,it needs a hefty set of reworking

In your introduction and elsewhere, you have some circular definitions, or otherwise unclear presentations. In particular, you need to connect your concluding quote in the intro with the rest of the piece - it just dangles there now and I am not sure what purpose it is supposed to serve, right now it is just confusing. The last part of your interpretation section sounds more like thematic analysis. You also need to clarify the difference between narrative analysis and analysis of narrative, along with the difference between "an experience of time" and "a reference to a historical time. Carefully read through your piece and attempt to increase clarity throughout.
Whenever possible, you need to cite multiple sources for a single statement. You also need better citation throughout.
You contradict yourself in several places - for example under interpret, your statement about there being no single interpretive truth contradicts the positivist/post-positivist epistemology you discuss right below it. You have similar problems in other parts of that section - correct for accuracy and clarity.
For greater balance, you need to develop Brunder and Gee a bit more.
Check and correct universalizing statements throughout - do not read them for how you intended them, but what they say here.
Saying that your first step is constructing a narrative makes no sense - that is exactly the process you are talking about below. You have also left out a couple of preliminary (but very important) steps out - like how do you develop your research question, etc (this distinction may need to go with the different approach, indeed you may want to reorganize this section around them).
You have a great chart of different epistemologies, but I suggest you include the area of focus for the fable, story, etc for epistemology such as Marxism.
Criticism definitely needs further development.
Respond to all critiques of other reviewers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heather Adams (talk • contribs) 00:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Adams (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add, per WP:CRITS a criticism section is generally not good form, it should be incorperated within the body of the article, not have it's own section. — raeky t 23:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would adding the criticism to the introduction suffice? (Anbingham (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I have corrected a good number of your criticism Heather Adams and will continue to do so. Your point about adding "fable, story, etc for epistemology such as Marxism" is causing some problems. The table on the page is directly from a text and I have not been able to find support to add the fable and story to the Marxist epistemology yet. Do you have any suggestions as to where I can find a text to back this up? (Anbingham (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Uncredited Edits to Narrative Inquiry

My apologies, I was under the impression that I was signed in when I made the following changes to the page.

(cur | prev) 16:26, 29 November 2012‎ 147.226.231.239 (talk)‎ . . (19,942 bytes) (-576)‎ . . (Intro/ Reorganized introduction and took out unnecessary quote) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:21, 29 November 2012‎ 68.51.119.54 (talk)‎ . . (20,518 bytes) (-238)‎ . . (→‎Methods: fixed step one and moved quote to interpretation) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:16, 29 November 2012‎ 68.51.119.54 (talk)‎ . . (20,756 bytes) (-276)‎ . . (→‎Methods: deleted contradictory statement in interpretation) (undo)

(Anbingham (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Theorical preferences and/or missing references

This article completely fails to acknowledge the researches in narrative analysis originated in Europe, and particularly in France, and still very much applied by literary and social researchers worldwide. A very brief account of these researches and methods can be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narratology. As it is, this page seems to suggest that the diction "narrative analysis" should be applied preferentially to a certain kind of approaches (e.g. Bruner), or that these approaches have a predominant importance in the general field of narrative analysis. Both assumption appear to me incorrect. A solution could be to explicitly state the limitations of this account and point to other pages (e.g. Narratology) for a more comprehensive view, or even better to improve the scope of the page by including other approaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.156.2.92 (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles on narrative, including the one you reference could do with more third party sourcing and some consolidation. If anything the narratology article is more limited, especially as it uses a neologism as a title and has restricted sourcing. I wrote one of the entries in the Sage handbook on action research related to Narrative and attempted in that to create an overall typology to understand difference approaches balancing them between communication, research and knowledge/understanding. While that is a third party source, as the writer I am reluctant to use it as an editor here and there are probably better overviews as that focused on a wider field than just academic work. ----Snowded ^TALK 02:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]