Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

How does narrative interviewing differ from the classic in-depth interview? The first term suggests the generation of detailed “stories” of experience, not generalized descriptions. But narratives come in many forms, ranging from tightly bounded ones that recount specific past events (with clear beginnings, middles, and ends) to narratives that traverse temporal and geographical space—biographical accounts that refer to entire lives or careers.

The idea of narrative interviewing represents a major shift in perspective in the human sciences about the research interview itself. The question-and-answer (stimulus/response) model gives way to viewing the interview as a discursive accomplishment. Participants engage in an evolving conversation; narrator and listener/questioner, collaboratively, produce and make meaning of events and experiences that the narrator reports (Mishler, 1986). The “facilitating” interviewer and the vessel-like “respondent” are replaced by two active participants who jointly produce meaning (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002). Narrative interviewing has more in common with contemporary ETHNOGRAPHY than with mainstream social science interviewing practice that relies on discrete OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS and/or CLOSED-ENDED QUESTIONS.

Encouraging Narration

When the interview is viewed as a conversation—a discourse between speakers—rules of everyday conversation apply: turn taking; relevancy; and entrance and exit talk to transition into, and return from, a story world. One story can lead to another; as narrator and questioner/listener negotiate spaces for these extended turns, it helps to explore associations and meanings that might connect several stories. If we want to learn about experience in all its complexity, details count: specific incidents, not general evaluations of experience. Narrative accounts require longer turns at talk than are typical in “natural” conversation, certainly in mainstream research practice.

Opening up the research interview to extended narration by a research participant requires investigators to give up some control. Although we have particular experiential paths we want to cover, narrative interviewing means following participants down their trails. Genuine discoveries about a phenomenon can come from power sharing in interviews.

Narratives can emerge at the most unexpected times, even in answer to fixed-response (yes/no) questions (Riessman, 2002). But certain kinds of open-ended questions are more likely than others to provide narrative opportunities. Compare “When did X happen?” which requests a discrete piece of information, with “Tell me what happened … and then what happened?” which asks for an extended account of some past time. Some investigators, after introductions, invite a participant to tell their story—how an illness began, for example. But experience always exceeds its description and narrativization; events may be fleetingly summarized and given little significance. Only with further questioning can participants recall the details, turning points, and other shifts in cognition, emotion, and action. In my own research on disruptions in the expected life course, such as divorce, I have posed the question: “Can you remember a particular time when …?” I might probe further: “What happened that makes you remember that particular moment in your marriage?” Cortazzi and colleagues (Cortazzi, Jin, Wall, & Cavendish, 2001), studying the education of health professionals, asked: “Have you had a breakthrough in your learning recently?” “Oh yes” typically followed, and then a long narrative with an outpouring of emotion and metaphor about a breakthrough—“a clap of thunder,” as one student said.

...

locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading