Not Embracing Narrative Inquiry

So the hunt for my preferred method ensues, and I am still leaning towards phenomenology.  I am now pretty sure I will not favor narrative inquiry for my preferred analysis.  This is going to be quite critical, but I get the impression narrative inquiry, particularly the sociolinguistic approach (Grbich, 2013), is lost in its own technique. It seems that Labov (1972) and Reissman’s (1993) approaches are of this vein, and I question the fruitfulness of applying narrative inquiry to the study of the narratives of ordinary people.  For instance, “. . . recapitulating past experience by matching a verbal sequence of clauses to the sequence of events which (it is inferred) actually occurred” (Labov, pp.359-360) seems rather unnecessary.  However, I imagine this quintessential “reading between the lines” is entirely appropriate for examining secreted genius of great authors. 

Moreover, Reissman (1993) does anticipate my criticism in stating narrative inquiry “is not suitable for investigators who seek an easy and unobstructed view of subjects’ lives” (p. 69).  But again, I doubt the necessity of the approach.  Perhaps, though, I will soften towards narrative inquiry.  This is just my initial impression.

Moustakas’ book arrived yesterday, and I hope to begin looking at it later tonight or tomorrow and examining the other material you thoughtfully recommended.

Grbich, C.  (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Labov, W. (1972). Language and the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.

Riessman, C. K. (1993) Narrative analysis.Qualitative Research Methods Series, No. 30. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.