You are on page 1of 16

Journal of Teacher Education

http://jte.sagepub.com

Navigating Sites for Narrative Inquiry


D. Jean Clandinin, Debbie Pushor and Anne Murray Orr
Journal of Teacher Education 2007; 58; 21
DOI: 10.1177/0022487106296218
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/58/1/21

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)

Additional services and information for Journal of Teacher Education can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007


2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

NAVIGATING SITES FOR NARRATIVE INQUIRY


D. Jean Clandinin
University of Alberta

Debbie Pushor
University of Saskatchewan

Anne Murray Orr


St. Francis Xavier University

Narrative inquiry is a methodology that frequently appeals to teachers and teacher educators.
However, this appeal and sense of comfort has advantages and disadvantages. Some assume narrative inquiries will be easy to design, live out, and represent in storied formats in journals, dissertations, or books. For the authors, though, narrative inquiry is much more than the telling of stories.
There are complexities surrounding all phases of a narrative inquiry and, in this article, the authors
pay particular attention to thinking about the design of narrative inquiries that focus on teachers
and teacher educators own practices. They outline three commonplaces and eight design elements for
consideration in narrative inquiry. They illustrate these elements using recently completed narrative
inquiries. In this way, the authors show the complex dimensions of narrative inquiry, a kind of
inquiry that requires particular kinds of wakefulness.

Keywords: commonplaces of narrative inquiry; ethics; narrative inquiry; representation;


research design; research methodology; research methods; teacher education
Narrative inquiry is a methodology that frequently appeals to teachers and teacher educators. Part of the appeal is, no doubt, the comfort
that comes from thinking about telling and listening to stories. This comfort associated with
narratives and stories carries into a sense of
comfort with research that attends to teachers
and teacher educators stories. However, this
appeal and sense of comfort has advantages and
disadvantages. Although it has appeal, some
immediately see it as an easy kind of research
and assume that narrative inquiries will be easy
to design, live out, and represent in a storied format in journals, dissertations, or books. Some
see narrative inquiry as just telling stories. For
us, and for many others (Clandinin et al., 2006;

Craig, 1992; Olson, 1993; Paokong & Rosiek,


2003; Polkinghorne, 1988), narrative inquiry is
much more than the telling of stories. The editors of many journals, including the Journal
of Teacher Education, are concerned with making
more apparent the complexities surrounding all
phases of a narrative inquiry; in this article, we
take on the challenge of paying particular attention to thinking about the quality and impact of
narrative inquiries that focus on teachers and
teacher educators own practices. Although we
want to encourage people to engage in narrative
inquiries into their own practices, we do want to
show the complex dimensions of such research,
for narrative inquiry is a kind of inquiry that
requires particular kinds of wakefulness.

Authors Note: We would like to acknowledge the reviewers (albeit anonymous) contribution to deepening and enriching this conversation.
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007 21-35
DOI: 10.1177/0022487106296218
2007 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
21
Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007
2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

The term narrative inquiry was first used in


the educational research field by Connelly and
Clandinin (1990) in an article published in
Educational Researcher. Their conceptualization
of narrative inquiry arises from a Deweyan
(1938) notion that life is education. Their interest, then, is in lived experiencethat is, in lives
and how they are lived (Clandinin & Connelly,
2000, p. xxii). Although narrative inquiry has a
long intellectual history both in and out of education (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, p. 2), prior
to 1990 it had been thought about in ways such
as MacIntyres (1981) notion of narrative unity,
Mitchells (1981) comprehensive presentation of
the field of narratology, Polkinghornes (1988)
understanding of narrative analysis, and Coless
(1989) literary ideas of narrative. By building
from these notions, yet situating their conceptualization as narrative and inquiry, as phenomenon and method, Connelly and Clandinin
(1990) established the educational importance of
narrative inquiry as a research methodology
that brings theoretical ideas about the nature of
human life as lived to bear on educational experience as lived (p. 3).
As a way to begin to explore the complexities
of narrative inquiry as research methodology, we
first offer a definition of narrative inquiry
and outline three commonplaces of narrative
inquiry (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006). We then
briefly describe two narrative inquiries undertaken by Murray Orr (2005) and Pushor (2001).
Both are teacher educators, and their narrative
inquiries emerge from, and influence, their
teacher education practices. We then elaborate
eight key elements that may be useful in thinking
about conducting and representing narrative
inquiries. Pushors and Murray Orrs studies are
used to illuminate each of the eight elements.
A DEFINITION OF NARRATIVE INQUIRY
Although there are many ideas about what
researchers and practitioners mean when they
use the term narrative inquiry, we use the definition offered by Connelly and Clandinin (2006).
They wrote,
Arguments for the development and use of narrative
inquiry come out of a view of human experience in

22

which humans, individually and socially, lead storied lives. People shape their daily lives by stories of
who they and others are and as they interpret their
past in terms of these stories. Story, in the current
idiom, is a portal through which a person enters the
world and by which their experience of the world is
interpreted and made personally meaningful.
Viewed this way, narrative is the phenomenon studied in inquiry. Narrative inquiry, the study of experience as story, then, is first and foremost a way of
thinking about experience. Narrative inquiry as a
methodology entails a view of the phenomenon. To
use narrative inquiry methodology is to adopt a particular narrative view of experience as phenomena
under study. (p. 477)

Although narrative inquiry has been used in


studies of community (Huber & Whelan, 2001),
nursing (Barton, 2006), anthropology (Bateson,
1994), occupational therapy (Mattingly, 2006),
cross-cultural studies (Andrews, 2006) and many
others, our interest in narrative inquiry in this
article is in how it has been taken up and used
by teachers and teacher educators interested in
studying and improving their own practices.
The field of narrative inquiry is still developing. The Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a
Methodology (Clandinin, 2006) offers a useful
guide to methodological undertakings and lays
out helpful distinctions within the field of narrative inquiry. Although narrative inquiry shares
features in common with other forms of qualitative inquiry such as the emphasis on the social in
ethnography and the use of story in phenomenology (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006, p. 479), it
is distinct from other methodologies. Connelly
and Clandinin borrowed the notion of commonplaces from Schwabs (1978) writing on curriculum to sort through and clarify the distinct
qualities of narrative inquiry. Schwab developed
four commonplacesteacher, learner, subject
matter, and milieuto deal with the complexity
of curriculum. An adequate curriculum argument needed to deal with all four. What,
Connelly and Clandinin wondered, would the
commonplaces of narrative inquiry be?
THE COMMONPLACES OF
NARRATIVE INQUIRY
In a similar spirit to the one they imagined
Schwab had in developing the commonplaces
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007


2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

of curriculum, Connelly and Clandinin (2006)


identified three commonplaces of narrative
inquirytemporality, sociality, and place
which specify dimensions of an inquiry space
(p. 479). They imagined them in the spirit of
check points (p. 479) or places to direct ones
attention in conducting a narrative inquiry.
They provide a kind of conceptual framework
for narrative inquiry. However, just as it was
for Schwab in curriculum, the study of any one
or a combination of these three commonplaces
might well take place in some other form of
qualitative inquiry (Connelly & Clandinin,
2006, p. 479). To undertake a narrative inquiry,
there needs to be a simultaneous exploration
of all three commonplaces (p. 479). We cannot
focus only on one to the exclusion of others.

in an inquiry relationship with participants


lives. We cannot subtract ourselves from relationship (p. 480).

Commonplace Three: Place


Again drawing on Connelly and Clandinin
(2006), by place we mean the specific concrete,
physical and topological boundaries of place
or sequence of places where the inquiry and
events take place (p. 480). As they noted, the
key to this commonplace is recognizing that
all events take place some place (p. 481). In
narrative inquiry, the specificity of location is
crucial. . . . Place may change as the inquiry
delves into temporality (p. 480) and a narrative inquirer needs to think through the impact
of each place on the experience.

Commonplace One: Temporality


Events under study are in temporal transition (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006, p. 479), that
is, events and people always have a past, present, and a future. In narrative inquiry it is
important to always try to understand people,
places, and events as in process, as always in
transition.

Commonplace Two: Sociality


Narrative inquirers are concerned with personal conditions and, at the same time, with
social conditions. By personal conditions we
mean the feelings, hopes, desires, aesthetic
reactions, and moral dispositions (Connelly &
Clandinin, 2006, p. 480) of the inquirer and
study participants. By social conditions they
draw attention to the existential conditions, the
environment, surrounding factors and forces,
people and otherwise, that form each individuals context.
Connelly and Clandinin (2006) specified
another dimension of the sociality commonplace as the relationship between participant
and inquirer. This is less important when one is
focused on ones own practices as a teacher
educator or teacher; however, it is very important in narrative inquiries where there are participants. In these cases inquirers are always

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TWO


NARRATIVE INQUIRIES
In this section we briefly describe two narrative inquiries, one conducted by Murray Orr
and a second by Pushor. Both inquiries are part
of a program of research into childrens,
teachers, parents, and administrators lives as
they are composed and lived out on school
knowledge landscapes. They are shaped by the
particular narratives of experience of each
researcher, the research puzzles, research contexts, lives of research participants and their
own lives, and the field texts and research texts
that come out of, and constitute, each study.
We briefly describe the studies here and revisit
them in more detail later in the article.
Murray Orr was a teacher in northern
Canadian Aboriginal schools prior to beginning
her research work. She brought questions about
what it meant to teach children in ethically
responsive and responsible ways to her research
and to her imagined life as a teacher educator.
Her doctoral research (Murray Orr, 2005) took up
these questions in a 2-year classroom-based narrative inquiry into the experiences of four firstand second-grade children who participated in a
series of book conversations with her. The four
children, students at a multicultural urban elementary school in western Canada, gathered at

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007


Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007
2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

23

lunchtime on Thursdays and with other students


at other times during the school day. Through
talk around childrens literature Murray Orr read
aloud, and through other conversations these
children showed ways they were coming to
understand themselves as students, siblings,
sons and daughters, and friends. The childrens
perspectives on themselves were sometimes in
tension with the stories being told of them as
students in school. Stories of each of the four
children challenged, unsettled, encouraged, and
inspired Murray Orr as she began to compose
stories to live by (Connelly & Clandinin, 1999) as
a new teacher educator. She laid stories of her
knowing of each of these children alongside
her experiences in the first years of her work in
teacher education, seeing resonances as some of
the tensions experienced by preservice teachers
called to mind tensions in the lives of the
children. Her narrative inquiry helped her theorize teacher education as a space to continue the
conversation, to engage preservice teachers in
inquiries, to keep at the work of composing shifting stories to live by.
Pushors wonders from her work as a teacher,
principal, and supervisor also shaped her doctoral research puzzle. However, it was the dispositioning she experienced from her vantage point
of parent that framed her research puzzle and
eventually framed her interest in how parents
were seen within teacher education. For her yearlong narrative inquiry into parents positioning
in relation to the landscape of schools (Pushor,
2001), Pushor joined Gardenview School, a large
western Canadian suburban elementary school.
As a participant observer, she became part of
school life as a staff member, parent, and narrative inquirer. As she heard stories of multiple participants, lived and told from multiple vantage
points on the school landscape, she attended to
parents experiences, particularly to their experiences of the structure of schooling. In this way,
she developed a metaphor of a protectorate to conceptualize how educators, as holders of professional knowledge about teaching and learning,
assumed ownership of the ground of school,
establishing programs, policies, and procedures
in the interests of children and their families.
Pushor made problematic educators tendencies
to see things small [by] look[ing] at schooling
24

through the lenses of a system (Greene, 1995,


p. 11). As she listened to stories of parents experiences, she imagined how the positioning of
parents might be shifted or the landscape of
schools changed if educators also [saw] things
big, bring[ing] [them] in close contact with details
and particularities (p. 10). What would the
landscape of schools be like if details and particularities of childrens and parents lives became
focal points in the development and living out
of programs, policies, and procedures and if
children and parents had voice and place in such
decision making? In her work as teacher educator her stories and the stories of Gardenview
parents continued to trouble her practices as she
sought ways to help preservice teachers imagine
changed landscapes in which parents knowledge was also valued. As a teacher educator, she
brought forward stories from her inquiry to theorize new ways of imagining school landscapes
and of helping preservice teachers imagine who
they might be in relation to parents on those
landscapes.
A FRAMEWORK OF ELEMENTS FOR
DESIGNING, LIVING OUT, AND
REPRESENTING NARRATIVE INQUIRIES
In what follows we propose a list of elements
to consider in designing a narrative inquiry, in
living in the field and composing field texts,
and in interpreting and writing research texts
(Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). We think about
these elements as a set of questions to ask ourselves at each phase of a narrative inquiry. These
elements guide the conversations Connelly and
Clandinin engage in with their masters and
doctoral students as they work through their
inquiries. However, they also work well as we
think about how we might undertake, live
through, and write about our narrative inquiries
in research texts. As we work through the elements, it is important to remember the commonplaces and how they shape each response.
1. A central element in narrative inquiry, as in
other forms of inquiry, is the justification, the
reasons why the study is important. Narrative
inquirers need to attend to three kinds of justification: the personal, the practical, and the social.
The personal justification comes from the
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007


2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

importance, in narrative inquiries, of situating


yourself in the study. We do that by writing
something we call narrative beginnings that
speak to the researchers relationship to, and
interest in, the inquiry. Sometimes narrative
inquirers write only a personal justification.
Although this justification is important, we also
need to justify the research practically, that is,
how will it be insightful to changing or thinking
differently about the researchers own and others practices? The third justification requires a
researcher to think about the larger social and
educational issues the study might address. In
some ways the practical and social justifications
point researchers toward an inquirys end point,
that is, to being able to answer the So what?
and Who cares? questions.
Pushors and Murray Orrs personal justifications differed. Whereas Pushor came to her
inquiry as a result of her positioning as parent,
Murray Orr came to hers positioned as teacher.
Prior to beginning her narrative inquiry, Pushors
knowledge did not prepare her for her experience as a parent on her eldest son, Cohens, first
day of school. As Pushor told stories of her experiences as a parent, struggled to make sense of the
emotions they evoked in her, came to see how
much the familiar school landscape became foreign to her when she was positioned as a parent,
her personal relationship to, and interest in, her
narrative inquiry were shaped.
Murray Orr wrote of experiences in her own
schooling and in the schools and classrooms
where she was a teacher, experiences in which
children seemed to be positioned narrowly as
good students, poor students, or perhaps
students who resisted instruction. Her lived stories provided a desire to create spaces in which
children could tell diverse stories to live by other
than ones shaped by narrow plotlines as
students. As a teacher educator, Murray Orr
found further justification as she visited the classrooms of preservice teachers and caught fleeting
glimpses of such spaces, rarely sustained.
Just as the personal justifications for Pushors
and Murray Orrs narrative inquiries differed,
so too did their practical justifications. Pushors
practical justification arose out of the telling and
retelling of her parent stories. As other parents
responded to her stories, she recognized these

were not only her stories. As she received


responses from her teacher and principal colleagues, Pushor awoke to the practical justification of her narrative inquiryof how the
inquiry may be insightful in changing or causing a shift in not only her practice but also in
other educators practices. As a teacher educator, Pushor considered how there is often little
space in teacher education for attending to relationships with parents.
For Murray Orr, although she intended in her
masters research to focus on facilitating critical
and creative thinking through conversation
around childrens literature (2002), she found
the books often provided openings for conversational spaces with children that encouraged
tellings and retellings of their stories to live by.
Students seemed to use these book conversations as spaces to negotiate their identities. As a
beginning teacher educator, Murray Orr recognized childrens literature might also provide
such spaces for preservice teachers. Her practical justification, then, arose from her eagerness
to explore the possibilities book conversations
might provide in creating transformative spaces
for students and for her.
The social justification for Pushors and
Murray Orrs narrative inquiries arose out of
questions not being explored in other research
studies, questions that moved to considerations of
So what? and Who cares? within teacher education. For Pushor, it was in the consideration of
how her parent stories were awakening her and
other educators to parents lack of place and voice
on school landscapes that the social justification
emerged. For Murray Orrs inquiry, the social justification arose out of her attention to how the cultural, social, and institutional narratives in which
children, teacher, and she, as researcher, were
embedded shaped their identities.
2. A second element is the need to name the
phenomenon, the what we are inquiring into.
Partly the phenomenon becomes clear as the
research puzzle and personal justification are
developed. An added complexity in narrative
inquiry, however, is that, no matter what the phenomenon, a narrative inquirer always adopts a
narrative view of the phenomenon.
Through living, telling, and retelling their
stories, Murray Orr and Pushor began to think

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007


Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007
2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

25

narratively about their phenomenaa narrative


view extended over time, shaped by personal
and social conditions, and situated, correspondingly, in a multiplicity of places. In the following
edited excerpt from her dissertation, Murray
Orr (2005) wrote about a child, Calvin, who
resisted her best efforts to teach him, in a story
that caused her to puzzle over how students are
positioned in schools, and how difficult it is to
shift these positionings when they are in place.
The late afternoon sun glinted on the wings of the
small plane that brought me to the tiny aboriginal
community of Willow Lake, in northern Canada,
accessible only by plane or by ice road for a brief
period in the winter. As I disembarked with my
husband, Jeff, I looked around at the children who
had come to the airstrip to see the new teachers.
Smiling faces, friendly welcoming words, helpful
hands carried some of our luggage the short distance to the teacherage, a house provided for
teachers by the federal Department of Indian and
Northern Affairs. I was a first year teacher, far from
home, beginning a new chapter of my life.
A little boy named Calvin walked hesitantly into
my Grade 2 classroom a few days after school
started. He looked too small to be there, but his
name was on my register. He wore a faded, not very
clean plaid shirt with the buttons done up wrong,
and a pair of very worn little jeans. Calvins long hair
wreathed his head in tangled disarray, framing a
small, sombre face from which big shining eyes
gazed up at me as I smiled and introduced myself.
Calvin did not say anything as I led him to the seat
in the middle row of the classroom which I had
assigned to him. As we continued the math lesson,
Calvin sat, stiff and silent, staring out the window.
Calvin continued to arrive at school at unpredictable times over the next few weeks. He would
come in and sit quietly, not participating in class at
all. I soon discovered from the other children that
Calvin lived on the edge of town in a tiny house with
his grandfather, and that he was behind his classmates in school. While fluent in Dene, his first language and the language of the community, Calvin
did not speak much English at all. And English was,
of course, the language of instruction in schools,
something I did not question at that time. I tried to
involve Calvin in class activities, to have him take
part in the lessons that I worked so hard to prepare.
He remained silent and uninvolved. I placed simple
worksheets that I thought he could complete on his
desk, so that he could work on these while the rest of
the class was busily engaged at centres or in other
activities. He left them untouched. I spoke kindly to
Calvin, encouraging him to complete at least one

26

worksheet. He would occasionally take a pencil and


scribble on the page. I was unaware of how inadequate and inappropriate my actions were.
One day in early October, Calvin sat at his desk as
usual, silently staring out the window. It was nearly
lunchtime and I approached his desk, quietly asking
him to do just a little work before the bell rang. He
suddenly erupted out of his desk, yelling in Dene,
and ran to the back of the classroom, where he began
beating on the wall in unrestrained fury. I ran to the
back and tried to calm him, speaking my English
words that I hoped were soothing. This seemed to
make things worse, and Calvin began to cry, great,
hoarse sobs tearing from his throat. I reached for
Calvin to try to comfort him. He twisted away from
me and tore from the classroom. He did not return
during that school year.
Sometimes I would see him in his yard, as Jeff and
I went for walks around the community that fall and
winter. I would smile and wave; Calvin would gaze
at me with those solemn eyes, unsmiling and silent.
I wondered what had gone wrong. Why hadnt
things worked out for Calvin in my class?
Fifteen years later, I consider why this story of
Calvin is with me after such a long time. I still clearly
see his face and picture the day he left my classroom.
I lived in northern Canada for eight years after that
fall and gradually learned something of life in a Dene
community, about the context from which Calvin
came to school. When winter arrived and the lakes
were frozen, some of the Dene families, Calvins
included, left the small community on the southeastern side of the large lake and travelled by snowmobile or sometimes dogsled to their trapline cabins to
the north. The teachers of our school took turns
weekly going up to the trapline to visit and teach. On
the trapline, families lived in small cabins and
trapped and hunted, as the Dene had done for countless years in this area. There were clusters of two or
three cabins on the edges of each lake scattered
throughout the region, just south of the tree line. The
children found it funny to see us out of our usual
school context, and families were unfailingly welcoming. My friends in the community and the
children I knew talked about feeling happier and at
home when they were up on the trapline. There was
usually enough food and always work to do, as the
caribou and smaller animals were used in a wide
variety of ways. Calvin came to school from a home
life that prepared him well for trapping, hunting,
mending a snowmobile, living on the land with independence and ingenuity. What happened when
Calvin came to school from this story of a life lived on
the land? His story bumped up against the story of
school that I knew, as a beginning teacher who was
unaware of many things, such as the importance of
the cultural experiences of the children in my class. In
time, I gradually began to learn to welcome and

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007


Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007
2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

attend to those experiences more fully, although I am


surely still learning. I continue to ponder the many
possible readings of this story of Calvin. (pp. 1-4, 5)

As this excerpt illustrates, in telling and retelling this storyand othersfrom several perspectives, Murray Orr framed her phenomenon
narratively as how students tell and retell their
stories to live by within the context of their
positioning on school landscapes. This narrative
view of the phenomenon of identity making
allowed her to attend to people, places, and
events as in process. As a teacher educator,
Murray Orrs inquiry into this phenomenon
continues to shape her practice, as she sees the
importance of awakening teachers to childrens
composing of their stories to live by in school.
For Pushor, it was out of telling and retelling
stories of her experiences of her sons entry into
the school system that she began to develop a
narrative view of her inquiry phenomenon. In
telling her stories, in listening to stories told to
her in response, and in listening to how others
made sense of her experiences, Pushor moved
backward and forward in time, inward and outward between the personal and social, and to
the place of many school landscapes. In this
way, she came to understand her phenomenon
narratively and to name it as the positioning of
parents in relation to school landscapes. Just as
Murray Orrs inquiry into her phenomenon
continues to shape her practice as a teacher educator, so too does Pushors. As attention to
parents voice and place on school landscapes is
virtually absent in teacher education programs,
Pushors attention to the positioning of parents
is woven through the curriculum of her courses.
3. A third element is to consider and to
describe the particular methods used to study the
phenomenon. Narrative inquirers address this in
two ways. First, we engage in imaginatively
thinking about the chosen puzzle, along with
possible participants, as existing in an ever shifting space (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006, p. 481).
A first task, then, for narrative inquirers is to
think of their inquiry phenomenon, topic,
puzzle, and participants as occurring in a
multidimensioned, ever changing life space.
To plan a narrative inquiry is to plan to be self

consciously aware of everything happening


within that life space (p. 481). Second, thinking about method also means figuring out and
describing the kind of field texts (narrative
inquirers term for data) we need to collect and
compose. Thinking at the outset of the inquiry
about the collection and composition of field
texts needed helps us make decisions at each
phase. However, again, these decisions need to
be undertaken with care to how the kinds of
field texts are attentive to all three commonplaces, that is, temporality, sociality, and place.
Taking the importance of imaginatively thinking about her study and how it might unfold
in the multidimensioned, ever changing life
space (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006, p. 481) of
the classroom and school within which she was
tentatively negotiating a place for herself,
Murray Orr thought first about ways to come
alongside and cultivate relationships with the
teacher and students in the classroom. She imagined facilitating a lunchtime book club with six
girls as participants. However, as she moved into
the classroom, she realized what she imagined
would need to shift as she learned more about
the teachers stories to live by and met the
children. The number, gender, and age of her
participants shifted from her first imagined
group. The study unfolded through imagining,
and reimagining, a reflexive and reflective back
and forthing as lives changed and the context
changed as Murray Orr moved into the midst
and came to know her participants.
Pushor also engaged in imaginative thinking
about her inquiry using Clandinin and Connellys
(1998b) metaphor of a parade as a way to conceptualize the ever-shifting life space of a schools
professional knowledge landscape. They wrote:
Each participant in the landscape, in the parade,
has a particular place and a particular set of stories
being lived out at any particular time. Our influence in the landscape, in the parade, is uncertain.
We cannot easily anticipate how our presence, our
innovations, our stories, will influence other stories. The parade proceeds whether we wish it to or
not. (p. 161)

At first Pushor imagined herself as joining in


Gardenview Schools parade, following their

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007


Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007
2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

27

route, attending to temporality, sociality, and


place as she walked alongside school participants. In this way she realized what field texts
she would need. By listening to participants stories, by telling her own, and by interconnecting
these stories, she would come to know the narrative map of their parade. In her imagined planning she recognized her presence in the parade,
having her life touch others lives, would shift
the parade in known and as yet unknown ways.
As she began to live out her narrative inquiry,
she attended to how the multiplicity of her stories
to live by as mother, daughter, teacher, principal,
and so on was layered with another multiplicity
around her positioning or vantage points on the
school landscape. As she lived out the study she
attended to how these multiple vantage points
shifted, sometimes within a single conversation
or event. She realized she needed to compose
intensive field notes, wakeful to who she was,
and who others saw her as, within each conversation or event. These field notes became an
important part of her field texts, field texts
shaped by her multiple vantage points. As a
staff member, Pushor participated in activities such as staff meetings and staffroom life.
As a member of the parent community, she
attended, for example, school council meetings,
hot lunch days, and had coffee with parents. Her
field texts included field notes on all of this; however, she also jotted down things she was
reminded of from her own experience, as well as
readings and things for further reflection. Her
field texts included field notes; staff, parent, and
school correspondence; monthly school and
classroom newsletters; minutes of meetings; photographs of the school, people, and events; personal correspondence; and transcripts of taped
conversations.
Murray Orrs field texts were collected and
composed when she was positioned alongside
the children in the classroom and school. She
made minimal notes in the moment, and later, at
home on her computer, she wrote of the days
events in as much detail as she could recall. She
also had audiotaped conversations with the
children around the books they read and taped
weekly conversations with the teacher as they
discussed the students curricular experiences.
She collected documents such as childrens art
28

and writing and biweekly letters from the


teacher to parents. Murray Orr composed and
collected these field texts attentive to temporality, sociality, and place.
4. A fourth design element to be described in
research texts is the analysis and interpretation
processes. Although there are many ways to
think about the move from field texts to research
texts, that is, the papers, books, dissertations to
be made public, all forms of narrative inquiry
emphasize that considering the contextual and
relational are important. This element draws
attention to the importance of defining and
balancing the commonplaces (Connelly &
Clandinin, 2006, p. 482), that is, to how we examine, describe, and specify the commonplace features built into the study.
Pushor and Murray Orr found the narrative
inquiry commonplaces an important scaffold
for analysis and interpretation in their inquiries.
Through attending to these commonplaces, a
move for Pushor to unanticipated times, places,
and spaces was evoked during analysis and
interpretation processes. For example, during
her year-long inquiry at Gardenview School,
parent advocacy for increased funding of public
education became a strong local movement. In
wondering if the role of advocacy was a change
in the positioning of parents, and if parents were
finding a place for their knowledge, voice, and
participation in decision making in this advocacy campaign, Pushor moved backward and
forward in time, inward and outward in relation
to the personal and the social, and explored the
place of Gardenview in relation to the local and
provincial landscape. In this way, Pushor used a
process of analysis that drew deeply on the narrative inquiry commonplaces as a framework
for her interpretation of her field texts.
The move from field texts to research texts
was not a smooth linear transition for Murray
Orr. She began to write pieces drawing on field
notes and transcripts only 8 months into her
research. However, she also continued to return
to the school to compose more field texts during the next year. This overlapping of different
kinds of writing helped Murray Orr see the
commonplaces from multiple perspectives. As a
teacher educator, she saw the need for an interpretation of the field texts that brought forward
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007


2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

the importance of the relational in her conversations with children. Murray Orr described her
use of the commonplaces to structure the analysis in her research text and returned to the commonplaces throughout her research text, making
her use of this framework visible to the reader.
5. A fifth element is the positioning narrative
inquirers do as they position their studies in relation to other research on a particular phenomenon, to related programs of research, and to
research undertaken using different epistemological and ontological assumptions. This positioning is similar to what all researchers do in their
literature reviews. Sometimes, however, narrative inquirers act as if there is no need for positioning their work relative to other research.
Pushor and Murray Orr read in areas specific
to their inquiry puzzles. The conceptualization
of involvement, and the lack of challenge to this
conceptualization, troubled Pushor when she
read in the literature of parent involvement.
Needing another literature to help her think
about transforming school landscapes, she
turned to the research on teacher knowledge.
Murray Orr used Greenes conception of
seeing big and seeing small as a literature that
helped her consider how to create spaces in her
teacher education courses where attention to the
particularities of each person would enable preservice teachers to bring in their stories to live
by and, correspondingly, be awake to inviting
children to do the same. Similarly, Greenes
(1995) conception helped Pushor imagine paying particular attention to parents on school
landscapes and to awaken preservice teachers to
seeing parents big.
A second way of positioning is to see that,
for example, there are multiple programs of
research within each area. It is important for narrative inquirers to position their work in relation
to other programs of research. Conceptually,
Pushor and Murray Orr ground their narrative
inquiries in a Deweyan view of experience, a
view that acknowledges the embodiment of the
person in the world and that focuses on not only
the individuals experience but also on the social,
cultural, and institutional narratives in which
the individuals experiences are constituted,
shaped, expressed, and enacted.

In relation to multiple programs of research


within an area, Pushor positioned her inquiry
into parent knowledge within a large body of
literature on parents, and alongside the work
of other researchers who consider how parents
participate or are engaged on school landscapes in ways that are relational and reciprocal (Benson, 1999; Cairney & Munsie, 1992;
Edwards, Pleasants, & Franklin, 1999; Shockley,
Michalove, & Allen, 1995; Taylor, 1997; Taylor &
Dorsey-Gaines, 1988). Her research grows out of
a narrative view of experiential knowledge, particularly the work on teachers personal practical
knowledge (Clandinin, 1986; Elbaz, 1983;
Grimmett & McKinnon, 1992). Her study highlights that parents too can be seen as holders and
constructors of knowledge about children, teaching, and learning.
Murray Orrs research is also positioned
within a narrative view of experiential knowledge. However, she is also trying to understand
the interconnections between childrens identity
making and their contexts. Because childrens
experience with literature is an intense research
focus, she drew on others work in this field (Blair
& Sanford, 2004; Galda, 1998). Furthermore,
because her research interest is as a teacher
educator, she also positioned her work alongside the literature on dilemmas in teacher
education (Britzman, 1986; Florio-Ruane, 2001;
Hinchman & Oyler, 2000). She did this by connecting threads from stories in her research to
the literature. For example, she connected the
childrens stories of strong family and cultural
ties with the knowing that preservice teachers
bring to the teacher education program
(Battiste, 1998; Hinchman & Oyler, 2000;
Pushor & Murphy, 2004).
A third positioning is to position our narrative
inquiries in relation to other forms of inquiry.
Clandinin and Rosiek (2006) offered a mapping
of the methodological landscape in which they
explore the conceptual roots of narrative inquiry
alongside the philosophical assumptions that
underlie other forms of scholarship. The borders
and borderlands among narrative inquiry, postpositivist, poststructuralist, and critical theory
forms of research are mapped. This positioning is
important for narrative inquirers even if they do

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007


Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007
2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

29

not want to explore the philosophical assumptions in great detail.


These multiple ways of positioning our
work in relation to other work are all important. The answer to which literatures we position our work in relation to is given by noting
what conversations we most want to join
within the larger conversations of teaching and
teacher education.
6. A sixth design element, the uniqueness of
each study, allows narrative inquirers to offer
some sense of what it is that can be known about
a phenomenon that could not be known, at least
in the same way, by other theories, methods, or
lines of work.
Pushors and Murray Orrs studies offer distinctive lenses through which they inquire into
their respective phenomena. For Pushor, this
uniqueness involved a different way of conceptualizing and representing parent knowledge. In
much of the research literature around parents,
research is conceptualized as research on parents
rather than research with parents. Research thus
presents researchers stories of parents, rather
than parents stories. In Pushors narrative
inquiry, parents voices are heard telling stories of
their experiences with their childrens schooling,
and their stories are laid alongside the stories of
educators. This multiplicity of narratives invites a
broader and more representative understanding
of the complexity of school landscapes and of the
positioning of parents on those landscapes. This
narrative way of looking at parent knowledge
offers different viewpoints often not heard in
school communities.
Murray Orrs inquiry used a unique perspective on book conversations with children.
The literacy instruction research around
student talk about books in the classroom
tends to focus on goals such as improvement of
comprehension (Miller, 2002) and creating
more motivated readers (Fountas & Pinnell,
2001). Although these are important aims,
Murray Orrs narrative inquiry, coming alongside four children in book conversations,
enabled her to understand their composing
and recomposing of their stories to live by. By
focusing narratively on the childrens stories as
they told and retold them, Murray Orr was

30

able to propose ways children used the books


to shift their stories to live by and to invite
readers of her research text to consider book
conversations as spaces where children may
engage in the work of identity making. Thus,
her narrative inquiry provided a unique conceptualization of book conversations.
7. Ethical considerations, a seventh element,
are central in narrative inquiries. Although ethical review is mandatory for all research with
human participants the relational ethics of narrative inquiry need special consideration.
In narrative inquiry, inquirers must deepen the sense
of what it means to live in relation in an ethical
way. . . . Ethical considerations permeate narrative
inquiries from start to finish: at the outset as ends-inview are imagined; as inquirer-participant relationships unfold, and as participants are represented in
research texts. (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006, p. 483)

Although Pushor was no longer engaged regularly at her inquiry site when she wrote her
research text, and Murray Orr was returning
only every few months to hers, their participants
continued to live with them as they read and
reread field texts and wrote of their research
experiences. Each story they chose to tell, or
chose not to tell, each word they selected for the
retelling, or rejected for the retelling, they did
in their participants imagined presence. Pushor
and Murray Orr considered how participants
might read their words, how vulnerable they
were making them, and how their way of seeing
a story might align with, or differ from, their participants. Pushor and Murray Orr came to know
and care deeply for each individual engaged in
their narrative inquiries. Relationships developed, trust formed, experiences were shared,
stories were told, the ways lives became connected with one another evoked an ethic of
care (Noddings, 1992) well beyond the ethical
considerations called for in formal processes and
in signed commitments to protect participants
from harm.
Pushor negotiated her research texts with her
participants to ensure she re-presented their
voices and stories in resonant ways. In these
negotiations, she received responses that were
sometimes affirming and sometimes disrupting.

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007


Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007
2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

These became occasions for further thought, for


sustaining and extending their conversations
with one another, and prolonging her interaction with the text as she revisited, rethought,
and sometimes rewrote research texts.
In working as a narrative inquirer with young
children, Murray Orr was deeply concerned
about how her relationships with the children
would affect their lives. As she saw one child
being storied by the school as learning disabled,
and watched the accompanying changes this
brought to his life, she was seeing his strengths
as an imaginative child with a rich, diverse fund
of general knowledge about historical and scientific topics. Wanting to support this child, she
talked with teachers about his strengths.
Now as teacher educators, the ethical considerations that permeated their narrative inquiries
have become points of conversation in their
teacher education classes. Making the affirmations and disruptions that occurred when she
sought response to her research texts visible to
preservice teachers, telling the hard stories and
smooth stories around parents positioning in
relation to school landscapes, and troubling her
own thinking, are ways Pushor re-presents multiple voices in her teacher education curriculum
around parents and lives out the complexity of
the work in ethical ways with her preservice
teacher colleagues. As Murray Orr shares her
understanding of the child storied as learning
disabled, she wonders aloud with preservice
teachers, Did I do enough to support this child?
Should I have done more? She poses a larger
question, one that permeates her entire teacher
education curriculum, In schools and classrooms, how do we live ethically, relationally,
responsively alongside our students and our
colleagues?1
8. For those engaged in narrative inquiries,
the process of representation and the kinds of
research text intended become an eighth element for consideration. Narrative inquiry is so
much more than deciding at the last minute that
a paper or dissertation or talk would be more
compelling if a researcher was to tell a story.
When researchers say they want to do narrative and what they want to do is to take their
data and turn it into a story, that is, they want to
somehow incorporate story in their research

texts, this is not what we think of as narrative


inquiry. For those of us engaged in narrative
inquiry, we work from a set of ontological and
methodological assumptions and the questions
of representational form follow from those
assumptions. We detail six considerations below
that may be useful. It is important to note at the
outset as with all kinds of social science inquiry,
narrative inquiry texts require evidence, interpretive plausibility, and disciplined thought
(Connelly & Clandinin, 2006, p. 485). However,
there are some aspects of research text writing
that are particular to narrative inquiry.
The first consideration that Connelly and
Clandinin (2006) noted is that as one writes,
one must
continue to think narratively, crafting the research
text with careful attention to the narrative inquiry
commonplaces. The text needs to reflect the temporal unfolding of people, places and things within
the inquiry, the personal and social aspects of
inquirers and participants lives, and the places in
the inquiry. (p. 485)

As Murray Orr composed her research text


she thought narratively about the particular situation she was in. As she thought about representational forms for her research text, she
selected letters from the field as one form. She
selected her partner, Jeff, a teacher educator,
as her intended audience. The unsent letters
became a representational form that allowed her
to connect her sense of uncertainty as someone
far from home and in the new position of
researcher rather than in a more familiar position
as teacher, with the ways she understood some
of the stories of the children with whom she was
in relation as stories of being uncertain and on
the margins of school life. The personal and/or
social aspect of the inquiry was foregrounded in
this way by use of the letters from the field.
The letters also reflected the temporal unfolding of the research, during the course of 2
years, and the importance of place, the third
commonplace, as she wrote the letters from
the field to a partner living far away from her
for this time.
Second, the inquirer needs to consider the
possibilities of a range of textual forms, as

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007


Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007
2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

31

inquirers think of many different textual forms


reflective of the shapes lives take (Connelly
& Clandinin, 2006, p. 485). Inquirers sometimes
draw on favorite literary forms. We see this
narrative process of considering and choosing
textual forms in the ways Pushor selected the
representational form that structured her
research text. Although she had no predetermined representational form, she did have a
strong photographic image of her son on his
first day of kindergarten. From her narrative
beginnings, she pulled forward that image of
her son and herself in that time and place and
used it to shape the form of her research text.
What she eventually selected, a metaphor of a
photo album, allowed her to continue to check
back with the commonplaces of temporality,
sociality, and place.
Borrowing from a favorite novel, Margaret
Laurences The Diviners (1974), Pushor worked
out the entailments of her metaphor of photo
album and created word Snapshots to portray
moments in her inquiry experience. She did not
want to lose the sense of unfolding temporality
as she then created Memorybank Movies that
enlarged the snapshots with stories that told
what was not visible and what was not audible
in the snapshots. In this way she moved to considerations of place and the personal and social.
She created pieces that Look[ed] Beyond the
Images, the stilled and the moving, to connect
the personal of each moment to the larger social
and research context that illuminated the positioning of parents on the landscape of schools.
Moving through photo album pages allowed
Pushor to share the past, present, and future of
events, people, and places as always in transition. In the Snapshots, the stilled images, she
captured the place of each particular moment. In
the Memorybank Movies, she highlighted her
feelings, hopes, desires, aesthetic reactions, and
moral dispositions (Connelly & Clandinin,
2006, p. 480) and often those of participants. By
moving to Looking Beyond the Images,
Pushor linked the personal to the social
thinking about the inquiry in relation to
the broader educational and research landscape, the current provincial and political
landscape, and the bodies of literature on

32

parent involvement, teacher knowledge, and


teacher education.
Third, the writing of a research text is a narrative act (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006, p. 485).
We see this in the ways Pushor and Murray Orr
undertook their tasks. However, it also suggests
that, in a different time, in a different social situation, and for different purposes, a different
research text might be written. As Pushor and
Murray Orr look back on their research they
awaken to how they understand it differently as
they now work full time in teacher education
settings. As they speak to preservice teachers,
cooperating teachers, school principals, and
parents, they write and talk about their research
in slightly different ways.
Fourth, questions of audience are very significant for narrative inquirers. As suggested
above, there are multiple audiencesthe
inquirer himself or herself, other participants,
and an imagined reading audience.
Research texts that emphasize one to the exclusion
of others lose impact. Inquirers who forget their
participants and their readers and write only for
themselves, become narcissistic; inquirers who
write for imagined audiences and neglect their participants could be unethical; and inquirers who
write only for self and/or participants may be
unable to answer the questions Who cares? and
So what? (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006, p. 485)

Conscious of her imagined reading audience


as she wrote her letters from the field to a
teacher educator, Murray Orr created a way to
pull forward aspects of the study relevant to
teaching and teacher education. She wrote about
the personal and about what mattered to a
teacher educator. However, she also held her
participants in her mind. As she wrote, she visited the school, at first for several days each
week and then much less frequently when she
began work as a teacher educator thousands of
miles away. However, she knew from the outset she would negotiate these texts with the
children and, as she returned, she took her
developing research texts back to the children.
The children, then, were always in her mind,
a constant presence as she imagined sharing
her research texts about them with them as
audience.

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007


Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007
2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Pushor also kept her various audiences in


mind as she wrote her metaphoric photo album.
She imagined herself sitting together with various readersperhaps a parent, teacher, school
leader, teacher educatorflipping backward
and forward through the pages as she shared
her photo album.
Fifth, as research texts are composed, inquirers need to be aware of the criteria by which
work may be judged. Judgment criteria are
still under development in narrative inquiry.
Connelly and Clandinin (2006) suggested the
three commonplaces, and these eight design elements will be helpful in setting criteria for readers. They also wrote about good narrative as
having authenticity, as having adequacy and
plausibility (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 185).
These are criteria that put the emphasis on recognizability of the field in research text (p. 184).
Others suggest resonance as a criterion for judgment (Hoffman, 1994), a criterion used by
Pushor and Murray Orr. Comments from their
readers expressing how they saw or heard
themselves in the writers narratives speak to
how important resonance with readers is as a
way of illuminating new ways of thinking about
experience. As Murray Orr inquired into the
ways children were composing their stories to
live by, she worked to represent childrens identity making in ways that invite readers to find
resonances in their practices. Similarly, Pushors
parent stories call readers to lay their own stories of parent knowledge alongside hers.
Sixth, narrative inquirers also need to be
always attentive to, and make explicit, the
social significance of their work and the larger
body of literature to which their inquiry makes
a contribution (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006,
p. 485). This sixth consideration takes us full circle back to questions of So what? and Who
cares? It is important that narrative inquirers
attend closely to these matters and think carefully about the research and practice conversations they want to join in with their work.
Considering the work of other researchers in
these conversations, their standpoints and theoretical frameworks, and what is already
known about a particular topic is also crucial
work that narrative inquirers need to do in

their research texts if they want to occupy a


significant place in shaping the discourse of
policy and practice in an area.
SOME CLOSING THOUGHTS
Our outline of the eight elements constituting a framework for designing, living out, and
representing narrative inquiries allows us to
circle back to our initial comments about the
appeal and sense of comfort teachers and
teacher educators may find in research that
attends to stories of our experiences. We hope
we have highlighted that narrative inquiry is a
deliberative research process founded on a set
of ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions that are at play from the
first narrative imaginings of a research puzzle
through to the representation of the narrative
inquiry in research text.
As Connelly and Clandinin (1998a) wrote in
Asking Questions About Telling Stories,
telling stories is not enough. We need to move
to the retelling and reliving of stories, that is, to
inquiry into stories. Narrative inquiry requires
attention to narrative conceptualizations as
phenomenon and method, and to the interplay
of the three commonplaces of temporality,
sociality, and place in the inquiry process. It
requires particular kinds of wakefulness to the
eight elements delineated in this article and to
the particular kinds of complexities those elements raise in the research process.
We feel it is important to carefully consider
the comfort teachers and teacher educators feel
with research that attends to stories. Stories are
the form in which we and other teachers and
teacher educators most often represent our
experiences. Stories, ripe with possibility for
inquiry, surround and envelope us as teachers
and teacher educators. They are the woven fabric of school landscapes. Moving from telling
stories of our teaching practices to narratively
inquiring into our teaching practices situates
teachers and teacher educators in the known
and the familiar while it asks us to make the
known and the familiar strange and open to
new possibility. Teachers and teacher educators
have an opportunity to come to understand

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007


Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007
2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

33

more fully our school landscapes and ourselves


as shaping and shaped by these landscapes, and
thus, to shift our practices in relation to teaching
and learning, teachers and students, parents
and families, and curriculum making. Perhaps
we can even change school landscapes.
NOTE
1. In response to an earlier draft of this article, one reviewer
very thoughtfully and articulately wrote,
The issue [of ethics] was well situated in the text but I was
left wondering about the questions posed, Have I done
enough to support this child? and, In schools and classrooms, how do we live ethically . . . ?, such that although
the questions and issues were reasonable, they were certainly not answerable. Hence, is it more a matter of keeping such questions to the forefront that matters, or is it in
fact seeking to respond? I am not suggesting one or the
other is correct, but rather that it raises an interesting
point for further consideration because, in one sense, it
begins to highlight the sometimes overlooked clash
between the research, the researched and the researcher.
Like the questions we posed, we find the reviewers questions
reasonable and indeed complex. They are questions of great
importance for every narrative inquirer to grapple with.

REFERENCES
Andrews, M. (2006). Exploring cross-cultural boundaries.
In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry:
Mapping a methodology (pp. 489-511). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Barton, S. (2006). Spirit winds: A narrative inquiry into the
Aboriginal stories of diabetes. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Bateson, M. C. (1994). Peripheral visions: Learning along the
way. New York: Harper Collins.
Battiste, M. (1998). Enabling the autumn seed: Toward a
decolonized approach to Aboriginal knowledge, language, and education. Canadian Journal of Native
Education, 22(1), 1627.
Benson, D. (1999). A narrative inquiry of school and parent
councils: A partnership and the promise of power or hollow
words? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon
Fraser University, Vancouver.
Blair, H. A., & Sanford, K. (2004). Morphing literacy: Boys
reshaping their school-based literacy practices.
Language Arts, 81(6), 452461.
Britzman, D. P. (1986). Cultural myths in the making of a
teacher: Biography and social structure in teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 442456.
Cairney, T. H., & Munsie, L. (1992). Beyond tokenism: Parents
as partners in literacy. Victoria, Australia: Shortrun
Books.
Clandinin, D. J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in
action. Philadelphia: Falmer.
34

Clandinin, D. J. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of narrative inquiry:


Mapping a methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1998a). Asking questions about telling stories. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Writing
educational biography: Explorations in qualitative research
(pp. 245253). New York: Garland.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1998b). Stories to live
by: Narrative understandings of school reform.
Curriculum Inquiry, 28(2), 149164.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry:
Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Clandinin, D. J., Huber, J., Huber, M., Murphy, M. S.,
Murray Orr, A., Pearce, M., et al. (2006). Composing
diverse identities: Narrative inquiries into the interwoven
lives of children and teachers. London: Routledge.
Clandinin, D. J., & Rosiek, J. (2006). Mapping a landscape of
narrative inquiry: Borderland spaces and tensions. In
D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 35-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Coles, R. (1989). The call of stories: Teaching and the moral
imagination. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher,
19(5), 2-14.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1999). Shaping a professional identity: Stories of educational practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry.
In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook
of complementary methods in education research (3rd ed.,
pp. 477487). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Craig, C. (1992). Coming to know in the professional knowledge context: Beginning teachers experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta,
Edmonton.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York:
Collier Books.
Edwards, P. A., Pleasants, H. M., & Franklin, S. H. (1999). A
path to follow: Learning to listen to parents. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. Kent, UK: Croom Helm.
Florio-Ruane, S. (2001). Teacher education and the cultural
imagination: Autobiography, conversation, and narrative.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and
writers grades 36: Teaching comprehension, genre, and
content literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Galda, L. (1998). Mirrors and windows: Reading as transformation. In T. E. Raphael & K. H. Au (Eds.), Literaturebased instruction: Reshaping the curriculum (pp. 111).
Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Grimmett, P., & McKinnon, A. (1992). Craft knowledge and
the education of teachers. In G. Grand (Ed), Review of
research in education (Vol. 18, pp. 385456). Washington,
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007

Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007


2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Hinchman, K. A., & Oyler, C. (2000). Us and them:


Finding irony in our teaching methods. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 32(4), 495508.
Hoffman, E. (1994, January 23). Let memory speak. The
New York Times Book Review, 1-4.
Huber, J., & Whelan K. (2001). Beyond the still pond: Community as growing edges. Reflective Practice, 2(2), 221236.
Laurence, M. (1974). The diviners. Toronto, Canada:
McClelland & Stewart.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory.
Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Mattingly, C. (2006). Acted narratives: From storytelling
to emergent dramas. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook
of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 405425). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, D. (2002). Reading with meaning: Teaching comprehension in the primary grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse
Publishers.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (Ed.). (1981). On narrative. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Murray Orr, A. (2002). Book conversations as acts of caring: A teacher researchers reflective engagement with
Noddings ethic of caring. Curriculum and Teaching
Dialogue, 4(2), 89100.
Murray Orr, A. (2005). Stories to live by: Book conversations
as spaces for attending to childrens lives in school.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Alberta, Edmonton.
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An
alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Olson, M. (1993). Narrative authority in (teacher) education.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Alberta, Edmonton.
Paokong, J. C., & Rosiek, J. (2003). Anti-colonialist antinomies in a biology lesson: A sonata-form case study of
cultural conflict in a science classroom. Curriculum
Inquiry, 33(3), 251-290.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human
sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pushor, D. (2001). A storied photo album of parents positioning on the landscape of schools. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Pushor, D., & Murphy, B. (2004). Parent marginalization,
marginalized parents: Creating a place for parents on
the school landscape. Alberta Journal of Educational
Research, 50(3), 221232.
Schwab, J. (1978). The practical: Translation into curriculum. In I. Westbury & N. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays (pp. 365283).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shockley, B., Michalove, B., & Allen, J. (1995). Engaging


families: Connecting home and school literacy communities.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Taylor, D. (Ed.). (1997). Many families, many literacies: An
international declaration of principles. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate:
Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

D. Jean Clandinin is professor and director of the


Centre for Research for Teacher Education and
Development at the University of Alberta. She is a former
teacher, counselor, and psychologist. She coauthored many
chapters, articles, and several books, including Narrative
Inquiry (2000) and Composing Diverse Identities:
Narrative Inquiries Into the Interwoven Lives of
Children and Teachers (2006). She is part of an ongoing
inquiry into teacher knowledge and teachers professional
knowledge landscapes. She is past vice president of
Division B of American Educational Research Association
(AERA). She received the AERAs Early Career Award
(1993) and Division B Lifetime Achievement Award
(2002), the Canadian Education Association Whitworth
Award for educational research (1999), the Kaplan
Research Achievement Award (2001), and a Killam
Scholar at the University of Alberta (2004).
Debbie Pushor is an associate professor in the
Department of Curriculum Studies at the University of
Saskatchewan in Canada. In her program of research, she is
engaged in narrative inquiries into parent knowledge and
into parent engagement and leadership. In her undergraduate and graduate teaching, she makes visible and central an often-absent or underrepresented conversation in
teacher education about the positioning of parents in relation to school landscapes.
Anne Murray Orr is an assistant professor in the
School of Education at St. Francis Xavier University, Nova
Scotia, Canada. Her research program includes narrative
inquiries with classroom teachers to better understand how
students, families, teachers, and administrators experience
life in schools.

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 58, No. 1, January/February 2007


Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTNOMA DE BARCELONA on March 14, 2007
2007 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

35

You might also like