Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
What kind of study am I planning?
The particular methodology that has allowed me to discover and do justice to the perceptions and complexity of my research partners’ understandings,4 and that has also allowed me to present and represent their stories in a way that answers my questions about the experiences and social significance of growing up in a same-gendered family, has been the utilisation of a generic qualitative study with a narrative research design.
Narrative research attempts to understand and represent experiences through the stories that individuals live and tell (Creswell, 2002:525). The narrative inquirer tells and retells, lives and relives, presents and re-presents the stories that make up people’s lives, individually and socially, in order to answer questions of meaning, experience and social significance (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000:71,187).
The goals of narrative inquiry, according to Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach and Zilber (1998:72), are: (1) to assist us to understand the inner or subjective world of people and how they think about their own experience, situation, problems and life in general, (2) to obtain insight into the individual that clarifies what had previously been meaningless or incomprehensible and that suggests previously unobserved connections, (3) to convey to a reader the feeling of what it must be like to meet the person concerned, (4) to effectively portray the social and historical world in which the person is living, and (5) to illuminate the causes and meanings of events, experiences and conditions in the person’s life. I have used the narratives that reveal their everyday interpretations to present a reflexive and interpretive understanding of their experiences. While I have focused on their personal experiences, people’s narratives reflect not only their own meaning-making, but also the themes of the society or culture in which they live. All my research partners’ personal narratives must therefore be understood against the backdrop of society’s construction of what lesbian and gay families mean (Josselson, Lieblich & McAdams, 2003:8).
Narrative research is by its very nature full of loose ends and seeming contradictions (Riessman, 2002a:697). It also lacks the relatively fixed and traditional interpretative framework that a researcher would use to analyse and interpret findings. Another compromise that I had to make when I chose a narrative design is that I had to accept the process of working in an emergent design. Unlike quantitative research methodologies that begin with well-defined hypotheses which are then tested by fairly rigid research designs, qualitative narrative research always leads one in new directions as it unfolds. Discontinuous and fragmentary texts are a typical feature of narrative research. These texts need to be read and reread as one strives towards coherent and consistent interpretation. Even after one has captured the research partners’ stories in writing, the texts one is left with are never comprehensive enough to represent the research partner’s whole life. In this sense they are fragmentary.
The narrative approach implies an acceptance of pluralism, relativism, and the validity of individual subjectivity (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach & Zilber, 1998:2). All these factors are themes and motifs in postmodern and poststructuralist thought. They also relate to my research paradigm because I immediately found myself identifying with the qualitative interpretivist paradigm. After some reflection I realised that the social constructionist view could also give me valuable insight because interpretations cannot be disentangled from the social context in which they arise. I believe that the experiences of children growing up in same-gendered families reveal how they co-construct their social reality, and that this reality is itself socially constructed and situated within a specific social, historical and political context (Bevan & Bevan, 1999; Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999). As I wrote up my research, I realised ever more strongly the extent to which I was drawing on the poststructuralist paradigm by focusing on multiple voices and pluralist assumptions. The writing process required me to reflect on the multiple realities contained in the narratives, to engage with the ambiguities that this kind of research entails, and to recognise the effects that these factors were having on my research (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000:171). I soon realised, as I continued to incorporated aspects of postmodernism, feminism and post-structuralism into my operative paradigm, that I was engaged in constructing a complex methodological hybrid that was composed of elements that are typical of apparently different paradigms. After months of reflection and contemplation, I positioned myself mainly in the social constructionist paradigm while acknowledging the strong influence of post-structuralism on my thinking. In addition, I have incorporated points of view from other non-positivist paradigms because I found that they were valuable for the way in which I analysed current literature, conducted the analysis, and for aiding my reflection on the conduct of my research. This complex hybrid reveals to some extent the complexity on which I have based my study and research.
What is my approach to analysis and interpretation?
After contemplating different strategies for analysis, I utilised a holistic analysis to construct descriptive and explanatory accounts of the subjective experiences of the children growing up in same-gendered families. My use of the bare transcriptions as a matrix from which to construct the narratives reveals my analysis because this process required me to make sense of what my research partners had said in the form of a more polished story. The narratives are also an interpretive document in the sense that they represent my own way of making sense of the children’s experiences.
After that I proceeded to a more interpretive phase of the research. In this phase, I confronted the data (narratives) with analytical questions that enabled me to frame and focus the experiences of children in same-gendered families. I utilised these grounded narratives as an interpretive tool to develop “interpretive themes”.
Following this process I developed a framework in which the experiences of children growing up in same-gendered families were conceptualised.
The guiding framework for this study
I did not begin work on this thesis with a specific theoretical or conceptual framework (in the sense of a specific theory or point of view) against which I proposed to frame the data. My reason for doing this was that I wanted to be able to go into the field with an open mind about what I would hear. I wanted to be able to hear the stories of the children and their parents and siblings with my mind uncontaminated or distorted by predetermined conceptual biases and preconceptions. Because I needed to be as open as possible to whatever arose from my research partners (the children), I had to place myself in a frame of mind in which I would be open to literally anything that the children and their parents might tell me. In other words I had not made up my mind about what I would hear. In a phenomenological sense, I was in a state of bare attention to the subjective realities of the children involved in this study. And because I had no preconceived theoretical constructs about the experiences of these children who were growing up in same-gendered families, I hoped to be able to discover more about them and their subjective realities. Any predetermining framework of questions, for example, would have made my inquiries too specific, too leading and ultimately too limiting. I wanted to create a forum in which the children felt safe to disclose. If I had approached the inquiry with specific opinions and points of view in mind before the inquiry actually began, I would have deprived my data of the richness, diversity and uniqueness that I sought from the interviews. The narrative method and an open-ended interpretive framework allowed me to pursue my inquiries without the distorting effect of strongly established prior hypotheses.
Although I had reviewed the relevant literature in depth, I had not by any means made up my mind that this or that person©s representation or theory would guide my investigations. I stayed open to whatever new and unfamiliar or old and familiar data might come to my attention during the research process. There were times when such openness to whatever might happen certainly exhausted me because I was continually confronted by so many ideas, formulations, fields of inquiry, opinions and philosophies: radical lesbianism, postmodern feminist writing, queer theory, positive psychology, symbolic interactionism, interpretive interactionism – and many more. But I never chose one author or authority’s opinions above another’s because no one’s approach was so comprehensive that it would have allowed me to capture the essence of the subjective realities of the children who were growing up in same-gendered families.
How will I take care of my research partners? (Ethical considerations)
While the practical consequences of the ethical dimensions of this study are discussed in detail throughout Bubble Three, I wish to mention here that I made use of the following principles to ensure that my inquiry and procedures complied with widely accepted ethical standards for this kind of research (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999; Mason, 2002; Mouton, 2001; University of Pretoria, 2003). The principles that I used to guide me:
- The principle of voluntary participation. This means that the research partners could withdraw at any time from the research programme. The research partner might also, for example, refuse to answer any question. Research partners were also interviewed at reasonable times and by prior arrangement (appointment).
- The principle of informed consent. This means that the research partners were at all times fully informed about the research process and purposes, and that they freely consented to participate in the research. I kept my research partners informed by means of an ongoing dialogue between myself and the research partners throughout the duration of the inquiry process.
- The principle of safety in participation. This means that research partners were never placed in situations in which they might be at risk or harmed.
- The principle of privacy. This principle incorporates the principles of confidentiality and anonymity: The identity of all my research partners as well as the information gathered were given under conditions of anonymity and confidentiality. I explained to all research partners how pseudonyms would be used and how all data created would be stored in such a form that it would remain anonymous and impenetrable to anyone seeking to identify them.
I also complied with the highest possible professional ethical standards when creating data, analysing field texts or data, and when interpreting and presenting findings. This included the implementation of appropriate referencing techniques and the rejection of any form of plagiarism. Since I am a qualified educational psychologist, I adhere to the ethical guidelines of the governing body for Psychology in South Africa, namely the Health Professions Council of South Africa. These same ethical guidelines guided my research in all its stages.
Before dawn…situating myself in this study
Bubble One – Sunrise
Visual pointers to Bubble One
What is the focus of my inquiry? What do I want to know? And why do I think that what I want to know is important?
Assumptions of the study
How do I intent to find out what the experiences of children growing up in same-gender families are? Here is an explanation of my method of inquiry.
What kind of study am I planning?
What is my approach to analysis and interpretation?
The guiding framework for this study
How will I take care of my research partners? (Ethical considerations)
Specific comments on potential risks and pitfalls for the
research partners
Benefits and advantages to the research partners
Note on Terminology
“Housekeeping” – or what to expect as you navigate this thesi
You will encounter “bubbles”…
You will encounter a “green story-line”…
You will encounter “ribbons”…
The outline of this thesis
Bubble Two – Discovering and exploring the landscape of literature
Visual pointers to Bubble Two
The first link in a string of ribbons that reflects Bubble Two: The story of homosexuality, of gayness, ‘otherness’, queerness and beyond…
The second link in a string of ribbons that reflects Bubble Two: Situating families in the world of research
The third link in a string of ribbons that reflects Bubble Two: Critical analyses of research on same-gendered families
Bubble Three – Journey of the Inquiry
Visual pointers to Bubble Three
The first link in a string of ribbons that reflects Bubble Three
The second link in a string of ribbons that reflects Bubble Three
The third link in a string of ribbons that reflects Bubble Threen (What is my approach to data analysis and interpretation?)
Bubble Four – Here are our stories…
Visual pointers to Bubble Four
Prelude to the symphony of voices…Important notes before you read the narratives
Introduction
The lead role players, in order of appearance
Bubble Five – Making sense of stories
Visual pointers to Bubble Five
Ribbon One: Being okay with having two moms
Ribbon Two: Critical incidents
Ribbon Three: Contextual factors
Bubble Six – Framing my findings
Visual pointers to Bubble Six
How can we conceptualise the experiences of children growing up in same-gendered families?
The process of unravelling and building my intellectual puzzle
Postscript: revisiting the iterative and emerging process of analysis and interpretation
Bubble Seven – Sunset
Visual pointers to Bubble Seven
Criteria for quality
A summarised view of the findings of the study
Reflecting on possible strengths and limitations
Directions for further research
References
List of additional resources consulted
Addenda
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
