6 Writing structures Flashcards
Overall Narrative writing structure
In narrative research one usually is very keen on not prescribing a specific structure of writing and to allow maximum flexibility to the author to tell his or her own story about their findings in their own specific style and form. Sometimes the author/researcher follows closely the way the participants told their story in chronological order, but sometimes the author follows a more reflective approach by telling the story of the researcher’s experiences with the participants.
Especially if one focusses on how the participant tells a story, Riessman (2008) suggests that certain elements are systematically included such as: A summary and/or the point of the story, Orientation, Complicating action, Evaluation, Resolution and Coda
Embedded narrative writing structure
Within the framework of this very flexible and open writing style, the researcher can use and combine different techniques for the story he or she wants to tell.
One can vary the space one gives to certain voices of the participants, even though usually one would not want to silence any of them.
One can begin with a key event in the participant’s life and then work forwards and backwards from that event (progressive-regressive method).
One can zoom in and zoom out by e.g. describing the larger context first and then zoom in to the concrete situation or vice versa.
One can also focus on the structure of the plot or storyline of the participant’s narrative.
The researcher can also more selectively describe the collective themes, common threads, or elements across participants.
Many narratives might to a large degree have the character of a monologue, but since most of these narratives might be collected by means of an interview, the researcher can also tell the story of the participant in the form of a dialogue between researcher and participant.
The researcher might also wants to focus on time-and-place shifts or hints of things, events, or themes to come (foreshadowing), or specific metaphors in the participant’s narrative.
Overall Phenomenological writing structures
One highly structured way is suggested by Moustakas (1994) in which he strictly follows the different steps of the analysis.
Polkinghorne (1989) on the other hand also follows the analytical steps leading to the general description of the experience but puts more emphasis on the impact of such a report on first the practical application of the newly gained insights and second on the understanding of the reader of such experiences.
Van Manen (1990) suggests a bit more focused approach, focusing on specific themes, on contrasting ideas identified in the participant’s experiences, or on particular life situations of the participants.
Embedded Phenomenological writing structures
The more detailed rhetorical strategies the phenomenological researcher can follow are diverse, and one can explore diverse examples by reviewing the phenomenological literature.
Even though in phenomenological research one seeks to bracket the researcher out of the equation, Moustakas (1994) also suggests bringing in the researcher again in reporting on the results by developing reflexivity on the researcher on the results from an autobiographical context also as a kind of ‘assist’ to the reader of the study.
Overall Grounded Theory writing structures
Typically, in the Grounded Theory approach, the story does not start with clear-cut theoretical concepts one wants to address in the Grounded Theory study, as the development of a theory is the objective and not the starting point of the study.
On the other hand, one does start off with a genuine research problem and research question.
Also, the literature review is not superfluous but is more focused on showing the gaps or biases in existing knowledge and not on theoretical pre-conceptualizations.
In most reports or publications there is not enough space to report on all details, and therefore often one only partially reports on the exact derivation of the final results.
Since the main result is a theoretical and conceptual scheme explaining the process under investigation it is according to Strauss and Corbin (1990) very important to write on a conceptual level and to refrain from too many details, and to describe carefully also the relationships between the concepts but also the variations, conditions, consequences etc. for the relationships among these categories or concepts.
Embedded Grounded Theory writing structures
The more detailed rhetorical strategies for Grounded Theory researchers in reporting their results may focus according to Chenitz and Swanson (1986) on: description; the generation of categories through open coding; linking categories around a core category in axial coding and thus on developing a low-level theory close to the empirical case which then can possibly be linked to a more formal theory.
The final resulting theoretical and conceptual framework for the process under investigation is often described in words but very often also in an integrative diagram.
Overall Ethnographic writing structures
Since ethnography literally is about ‘writing about culture’, there is extensive literature on how to write ethnographically.
Van Manen (1988, 2011) describes several different alternative ways of ethnographic writing:
- as a confessional story
- as an impressionistic story
- as a critical story
- as a formalist story
- as a literary story
- as a joint story
Wolcott (1994) also writes in detail about how to structure goof ethnographic writing and distinguishes three steps:
- description (what is going on)
- analysis (identifying the patterns)
- interpretation (within the context of the researcher’s experience and within the larger body of scholarly research on the topic)
Embedded Ethnographic writing structures
In more detail, the writing strategies mainly focus on the different ways to present their empirical material, e.g. in the form of metaphors, visual and spatial images, dramaturgical characterizations, illustrations, cases or vignettes, etc.
Furthermore, authors can vary in writing thickly, by providing lush details and extensive quotes so that readers can empathize with the situations and events described, or thinly focussing on the most condensed summary.
Sometimes also the presentation of dialogues and interactions can display a vivid and dynamic picture of the culture under investigation.
Finally, it is also not uncommon to put the story the researcher wants to tell into a fictional, but nevertheless, a representational story using a more literary writing style.
Overall (Critical) Discourse Analysis writing structures
Critical) Discourse Analysis focusses on language and thus is directly related and sensitive to writing and the way of writing.
It is about linguistic utterances and their meaning structure. The description of these linguistic data is an essential element. The discursive contexts of these utterances are an essential element in the analysis and therefore also in reporting of the results.
These discursive contexts are subdivided in the direct setting of the production of the linguistic utterances and the wider social context. The meaning structure of these contexts are established shared meanings and can be seen as normative contexts.
The core of critical discourse analysis is the analysis of the relationship between the discursive meanings of these settings or contexts and the linguistic utterances under investigation. It is here, where also the power play and struggle about the dominant meaning takes place. As most (Critical) Discourse approaches also have an emancipatory political ambition, this is often also the main storyline in the report on the results.
Embedded (Critical) Discourse Analysis writing structures
The rhetorical instruments used within this overall structure depend very much on the specific audience for which the report is written.
The main argumentative structure of the report on the results is aiming at making the reader at least aware of these discursive structures and power relations, without suggesting directly what to do with them.
