I’m doing some phenomonology / ethnographic work with a sports team and will be doing some observation and semi structured interviewing.
I’m finding it difficult to differentiate between using narrative anlaysis and IPA (interpretive phenomonological analysis). I want to explore the story (the narrative analysis) but also explore the meaning of hte story (the IPA).
Has anyone ever used both methods for qualitative work involving life history work?
Hi, it depends what you want to do, and what you mean by exploring the story and the meaning of the story.
In our work on Nested Narratives we use a variant of Tom Wengraf’s BNIM. What is key for us is to enable people to make sense of their own stories, learning, identity. So we use the first part of BNIM, and then enable the story teller to add associations – pictures, texts, etc.
But what we are doing is essentially turning the narrator into a researcher of their own learning and identity, which we then observe, as ‘secondary researchers’ if you like.
What do you want to get out of the ‘meaning of the story’?
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
The forum ‘Default Forum’ is closed to new topics and replies.