Version 2011- QT 2011 revised Tom Wengraf tom@tomwengraf.com. BNIM 5-day Materials Booklet TWO - INTERPRETATION PLEASE BRING [THESE SESSION MATERIALS] WITH YOU Duplicates will not be available. This booklet is for use in the BNIM 5-day Intensive on Friday afternoon and during the last three days, Monday – Wednesday. It crystallises various points made in the Guide to BNIM. Bring both booklets to all sessions. Table of contents Figure 1 A glocal contradictions model for ‘situated subjectivity’ 4 Figure 2 BNIM in the CRQ-IQ structure 2.4+. 6 Figure 3 Condense to expand– use holistic imaging (or equivalent) to get at sense of ‘dynamic driver/quest path-current futures’ 7 Figure 4 Glocal Time-Line and historical tendencies. 8 Figure 6 Janette 3-columns – models of BDA + TFA phases……. 9 Figure 7 Janette condensed quotations. 11 Figure 8 Arthur Sample - knitting the three columns together – start of an example. 12 Figure 9 Questions for BDA and TFA Hypothesisings. 13 Figure 10 Questions for BDA Panel 14 Figure 11 Four types of hypothesising in panels. 15 Figure 12 Rosenthal strategy heavily modified. 16 Figure 13 DARNE DRAPES Box. 17 Figure 14 Instructions for sequentialisation exercise. 18 Figure 15 Matrix blank for creating a sequentialisation (TSS) 19 Figure 16 A sketch of a two perspective model for a quasi-Harold. 20 Figure 17 Questions for doing, and for after, a TFA 21 Figure 18 Three-way comparison - conceptual matrix. 23 The frustrations of training in interpretation procedures Past experience suggests that you will find the panel experiences of the BNIM interpretation procedures mostly pretty enjoyable (though sometimes exhausting) as you struggle to get under the skin and into the ‘felt world’ of the historically-situated subjectivity you are studying. However, as with the exercises in interviewing in the previous block, in this second block of work the necessities of training also lead to quite specific frustrations and discomfort over and above the normal discomforts of doing the work ‘for real’ when, in your own research work, you come, we hope, to do this. 1). With the possible exception of the micro-analysis panel exercise, the other two panel exercises (interpreting the lived life, interpreting the telling of the told story; BDA and TFA) unfortunately have to be much shorter and hastier than the real thing. This is just as discomforting as was your experience of the much-shorter-than-real ‘practice interviews’ in the first block of work on Thursday and Friday. As a result, you will be frustrated in your desire to work ‘properly’ at understanding a reasonable stretch of biographical data (the events of the lived life) and even more so probably at understanding a reasonable stretch of the ‘chunks’ of the telling of the told story. Since your procedure-training panels will be for about one hour instead of the necessary three hours for a ‘real panel’, you may feel “panels get you almost nowhere”. What is true is that “one-hour panels get you hardly anywhere” and that “three hour panels get you a very long way”. In addition, you may find it awkward when the ‘truncated pane’ exercise stops and we tell you what researchers found out after a full three hours, not to speak of further work after that. You may feel that you were led into ‘false conclusions’ by the inadequacy of the data presented. What you actually were led into was something like where the original 3-hour panel would have been after just one hour. At the one-hour time the hypotheses were fruitful; eventually after another two hours of data and discussion, better-grounded and stronger interpretations were and would have been arrived at. You have to imagine at the end of one hour on somebody else’s interview where you might well be at the end of three hours on your own! For training purposes, however, we do think it useful to tell you something about data you didn’t get to interpret in the ‘truncated panel’ sessions and of eventual ‘understandings’ that post-panel research came to. But, as we’ve said, you may be slightly ‘disappointed’ at not having ‘cracked the case correctly’ in the space of two or three one-hour-or-so panels. We can only say: nobody ever does. The same is also true about the exercise of ‘comparing cases’: the presentations of the ‘other cases’ have to be very brief, and instead of having three hours or a day to compare the cases, you will have something more like 30-45 minutes. As with all the exercises, they are there to help you see what could be obtained under non-rushed and proper conditions. A ‘5-day training’ cannot provide these conditions. A proper interpretation of a case would take, say, a month, not 3 hours! The training can only suggest what could be obtained under good conditions, and what to do to get there. 2. The second reason for ‘excess difficulty’ is that the case/s being interpreted and presented are not your cases. * You didn’t select the people to be interviewed about your research and your Central Research Question. * You didn’t do the interviews. * You didn’t extract the hard biographical data for the BDC->BDA. * You didn’t do the sequentialisation for the TSS->TFA. * Etc. Consequently, the motivation and interest that you develop in the exercises and presentations will be only a very pale (and somewhat frustrated) prefiguration of what happens when – after the training – you develop BNIM work on your own cases. So you are trying to get a sense in two or three hours self-training work on other people’s cases what you might do – once trained -- on your own in two or three days or two or three weeks on your own cases. It can only be frustrating, and the more frustrating as you glimpse what could be done if you had the proper time. It is the glimpse that is important to nurture. And, it is fun to do. NOTE ON THE MATERIALS THAT FOLLOW: 1. If you have read and/or scanned sections of the BNIM Short Guide and Detailed Manual, before they are used in the oncoming 5-day Intensive, some of them may be obvious, others hard to grasp, others incomprehensible. 2. Examples from particular cases are used throughout. Please treat them as examples, not as cases you need to know about. The cases we use in your training are likely to be different ones, but the principles will be the same. THE GLOCAL CONTRADICTIONS IMAGE ON THE NEXT PAGE I have inserted this as something that might help in thinking more concretely what might be meant by a ‘Historically-Situated Subjectivity/in transition between Alternative Futures’ (HiSS/TuF) 1. At any given historical moment the person (Subjectivity) (in the green vertical oval on the next page) is characterised by some innerworld contradictions 2. At any given historical moment, the Situation in which they are Situated is also marked by some outer-world contradictions. 3. At any given historical moment, the Subjectivity Situated in a Subsystem Situation is likely to be impinged in by even further-out world contradictions. Figure 1 A glocal contradictions model for ‘situated subjectivity’ GLOCAL PSYCHO-SOCIETAL CONTRADICTIONS MODEL Contradictory [dated, porous] situated subjectivity INTERNAL hour/day/month/2011; you where you are? EXTERNAL THE GLOCAL PSYCHO-SOCIETAL CONTRADICTIONS MODEL This model (see previous page for image) is one that you might possibly wish to use or, equally possibly, ignore. It suggests that as far as the ‘(dated) situated subjectivity’ is concerned, it can be helpful to think of both internal (inner-world) and outer (outer-world) contradictions, and that the boundaries of both ‘situation’ (the dotted outer square) and of the ‘dated located subjectivity’ (green oval in the centre of the image) are more or less ‘porous’. The BLUE ARROWS represent mostly dynamics and contradictions in the ‘inner world’ of the situated subjectivity. Note that there is at least one dynamic reaching out and affecting the ‘outer world’. ‘Situated subjectivity’ should not be assumed to be passive in relation to people and the material world around it. Some of the internal drivers and contradictions will be completely or partly within subjective awareness; others may not (subjectivity defended against frightening inner-world knowledge sub-model). The RED ARROWS represent mostly dynamics and contradictions in the (immediate and global) outerworld ‘situation’ of the situated subjectivity. Some of the external drivers and contradictions will be completely or partly within subjective awareness; others may not ( subjectivity defended against frightening outer-world knowledge sub-model). Note that RED ARROWS put pressure and strange attraction on the ‘drivers’ of the ‘inner world’: for example, the RED ARROW in the top left of the diagram “fits” an internal driver or impulse within the ‘situated subjectivity’, while at the bottom left, the Red Arrow meets a strong counter-impulse from a BLUE ARROW. Finally, there are PURPLE ARROWS which enter the somewhat bounded ‘situation’ of the ‘situated subjectivity’ from some unspecified “outside”. They represent the limits of our ‘systems thinking’ about the known life-world or situation of the situated subjectivities that we study and the systems/situations that we consciously represent them to be in. The PURPLE ARROWS come from outside, surprising perhaps both the subjectivities we study and our own subjectivities that represent their situatedness to ourselves. An economic recession, an enemy bombardment, an asteroid, or a new source of pleasure can always ‘arrive’ from the unknown. The term ‘glocal’ suggests both the ‘global’ and the ‘local’ nature of the inner- and outer- world ‘situatedness’ with all the mediations between the two. A final note: there are serious philosophical issues around the metaphor of ‘inner’ and ‘outer’, and serious conceptual alternatives around the models of drivers, contradictions and dynamics that you may wish to deploy for your psycho-societal interpretations of glocally-situated dated and defended subjectivities (including your own). Some of these issues are discussed very broadly in the BNIM Guide and Manual, especially in Appendix E.3. Most are not. Nonetheless, you may find this ‘glocal contradictions model/metaphor’ pragmatically useful in thinking about the patterns of the living of the lived life, the telling of the told story, and the evolution of the case. What intermeshing of dynamics (and contingencies) at previous moments of situated subjectivities led to the ‘present constellation’ (at moment of interview) which drives – or lays conditions of probability or possibility or their opposite – for alternative futures? Figure 2 BNIM in the CRQ-IQ structure 2.4+ CRQ 1: What is the structure of the case-dynamic? CRQ 2: What is the case-history? lived life analysis telling of told story analysis pattern pattern What we do learn from the micro-analysis of selected segments of verbatim transcript? What are the results What are the results of the Biographic of the Thematic Data Analysis? (Flow) Field (BDA) Analysis? (TFA) What is the What is the Biographic Data (Text Structure) Chronology? Sequentialisation? (BDC) (TSS) Outside Data The BNIM Field-notes + Narrative Interview other interviews Material documents tape + transcript social + historical research etc Figure 3 Condense to expand– use holistic imaging (or equivalent) to get at sense of ‘dynamic driver/quest path-current futures’ 80pp TRANSCRIPT DIVERSE PUBLICATIONS PhD Chronology BDC (1pp) 2nd case Particularised Grounded Theory for each case Living of Lived Life BDA (5pp) 20” policy presentation Case- phases / structure History of 3 columns Case Evolution Micro-Analysis 1 page + Telling of Told Story TFA (15 pp) N,000 word article 3rd case Their unifying N-case a/c... (+ your anomalies for them) Your unifying N-case account – no anomalies TSS (10 pp) ǁ Grounded Theory across-cases Sequentialisation Figure 4 Glocal Time-Line and historical tendencies Glocal Time Line and Psycho-Societal Tendencies To include dynamics over 3 generations, go back 100 years to 1910 GLOCAL COLLECTIVE DATA MULTI-FAMILIES DATA Glocal Notes & Tendencies Changing Dates - from 1 day to 2 decades World-historical Timeline for period 1910-2010 Glocal-regional-societal Timeline for period 1910-2010 ‘Community (ies)- Category’ Timeline for Period 1910-2010 Unique Family Timeline for Period 1910-2010 BDC Unique Parents/Sibs Timeline for period 1960-2010 BDC Unique Individual Timeline for period 1960-2010 BDC Known/imagined Long-run Glocal Tendencies for glocal levels Other Notes Up to 1910-19 Inter-imperial struggle in Europe ->WW1 1917 revolution; end of Austro and Ottoman Empires Grandparents born 1800 1870 ? 1990 Ecological crisis unsorted – grows US super-power expansionism 1920-39 1929+ slump, then WW2 Dictatorships; German Reich Parents born; emigrate 1940-49 WW2 + defeat of Germany, Japan Jewish Holocaust State of Israel f. Palestinian Naqba 1950-59 Hungary, Suez Brother born 1960-64 Anti-colonial liberations BNIM INTERVIEWEE. 1960 1965-69 ‘1968’ Israel occupies ‘Occupied Territories’ 1970-79 Western welfarism ends Neo-liberal regimes intensify Grandparents die Brother killed in car-crash Marries (19) 1980-89 Twins born (25) 1990-99 WTO + IMF rule End of USSR Separates (35) 2000-05 Rise of China Rise of BRIC economies Father, then mother, dies Emigrates (40) 2006-10 2008 Crash Loses job (50) 2011 - 30 Figure 6 Janette 3-columns – models of BDA + TFA phases……. +.. as back-u p and part-source of column 2 TFA column of sub-session 1 Biographical Data Analysis – phases hypothesis Subjective Phase Mutation-Phases Hypothesis 2nd draft From both sub-sessions, etc. //Thematic Field // Teller Flow// (TFA) Analysis 1 · Until 2 violence & loss of father in early childhood. Grandmother emigrates to Canada. · 2-7 emotional stability in poverty. Despite economic and social decline Jeanette’s mother stays with children providing stability. · 8-16 improved housing and education (for the mother) and a nuclear family life as signs of economic stability and upwards social mobility. Sociability with mothers’ co-students. Potential problems surrounding stepfather? 2 · 17-27 Mother and stepfather ask Janette to leave home, 3 · Seeking stability and order in traditional role. Opts for stability and control in relationship with a policeman. Buys house and has child. Traditional housewife. 4 · .27-30 repair strategies for inconsistencies. Creates more independence to overcome frustration of traditional role. Resumes education, activities with Labour party. Forms stronger links with partner’s family in Trinidad. 5 · 31-32 more negotiation following violence and separation. Violent arguments start following birth of second child. Failure of Jeanette’s ambitions for a nuclear family become clear. 6 · She claims single parent benefit 7 months after separation. House not sold. Negotiates arrangements with him for sharing child care A >5 Hopeful of absent father, but then disappointed. Promised sweets and a doll, but “I thought, you don’t care” B 11 Hopeful of stepfather, but “Regardless of whether he was there or not, I felt [self and sister] were in charge of the younger children, and their Dad didn’t like it”. c.20 Re father’s visit : “Regardless of whether my mother did or didn’t, , what have you got to say for yourself”. “Pathetic”. 19. “I didn’t want to move out because [mother/step-father] wanted me to move out” ……………….. [“I was very creative” unspecified] C Re David her partner. “Traditional housewife and dolly… wanted to fit into kind of nuclear family… [? I felt dead as a person?] D “After the strike I started to change”. There was “nothing of me” in that traditional housewife and dolly person … ” I felt[I had been] dead as a person”. Union campaigner. Separate lives, argument and violence with David. “I gave power to him, he didn’t have power over me”. “No good fighting the police old boy’s network”. Apparent failure to keep marital partner, apparent success in keeping father for her children. E He now co-parents. “He collects the children after school: they see him, I don’t have to”. Apparently well-negotiated co-parenting, even if de facto separation within the same house. Mother said: we are all “Strong women: the shrew in Taming of the Shrew.” I’m (probably) a third-generation single parent”. “Never felt the need for the norm of a family” I ‘(probably) third generation single parent’ Didn’t feel the need for a ‘normal’ family. ‘Strong women’ extended argumentation II Conflicts with stepfather not because she got less attention from her mother(?) but because she did not give up her child- parenting role over younger children and he failed to control them. Narrative about telling the boys what to do: ‘I felt I was in charge’. Straight into III Global evaluation introduces the main theme of initial narrative - ‘never met person who was my equal partner’. Followed by long distanced account of relationship with partner. Full of reports and strong argumentation - ‘I gave power to him he didn’t have power over me’. IV Long section on housewife phase - as ‘society wants it to be’ she felt ‘dead as a person’. Struggles for independence. Account contradicts her own assertion of her power. About sound engineering job – ‘I wasn’t actually strong enough’. Impotence against partner’s behaviour, acknowledgement of her position as, in effect, ‘probably’ a single parent. V Narrative on violence and police. ‘Old boys network’. Fear of her own violence as well as his. No evaluation. Summary of support partner gives as co-parent since the split – ‘much better now’ VI Argumentation on separation and support, comes after ‘that’s me’ pseudo-ending. Claiming benefit, previously only wanted assistance from their father. Final evaluation that situation is comfortable, illustrates ability to negotiate her position. Father more firmly involved in childcare and lives of children. Quest for stability and conformity in family life (but more) Little detail about relation with her busy mother. No empathy with fathers or partners. Adoption of a ‘strong woman’ ideology and denial of any ‘other or previous’ side. No reflexivity about internal or self-contradictoriness in her very determined extrovert and sociable activity. Figure 7 Janette condensed quotations Janette starts off I think I’ll start off by saying that I am, probably, a third generation single parent… my grandmother was single parent (because) my grandfather chose to stay back…my mum .. didn’t get married, and I think the last time I saw my dad (before?) I had been an adult was when I was 18 months… (My mum’s) now married to someone else… I’ve never ever felt the need for (3) like the norm of a family situation because all the women in our family were quite strong women…What my mum has always said to me is there’s not a woman in our family that wouldn’t have been the shrew in the Taming of the Shrew…. Are you telling me I’m a bastard?( to mother) around her marriage Janette longs for her father (from sub-session 2) at 4 or 5, phone call: promised sweets and a doll, “and I never got it....... and I thought well you don’t care” My step-dad… my partner…. never an equal partner Myself and my two sisters erm we we were like, we were the parents of our two (younger) brothers… regardless of whether my stepdad was there or not, we took over the parenting roles… and he got up and he came over and he said don't you ever tell my children to do anything, and I said I will because my mother has put me in charge, and that is not what the books are there for, erm (2) I think that's actually when I started becoming the way I am now, h-having very little respect for people who haven't really got any respect for themselves em (3) I found (2) I- from that day I could find so many faults with him, I thought it was so easy, I couldn't control my mouth after that point, the fact of not knowing that you had- relatives I was out there, that could have been anybody, I mean if I had been a promiscuous person, I could have done anything with that man, not knowing that he was my brother Ithat's what was scary, that's why I th- I felt- I literally felt sick, I have never been with a Jamaican per:son, I've never been with a person of Jamaican parentage I've been with Africans, I've been wi:th Nigerians, Ghana:ians (2) Portugese (1) my husband came from Barbados (2) it's like / I stay clear of all of ((breathlessly)) I’ve - I’ve never felt e:rm (right) I’ve never ever felt that I have met a person that is my equal partner .... as in my partner, I never felt that he could (2) ah- I gave power to him,h-he didn’t actually have power over me, I felt that I gave power to him, I -erm (3) I don’t know what it was, I uh (exhales), I’ve discussed it with so many people because I felt that I was so strong.” Janette as housewife – no discussion with policeman-husband “I actually became, the housewife in the house .... (3) but I knew=I mean I knew that wasn’t me:, I knew that that was what, I felt was supposed to have=been the norm....(3) and I-I knew that I was dead as a person” I was very creative before… he was a policeman and very rightwing in his politics, when it came to discussing things, he’d have his say and I wouldn’t challenge and I wouldn’t discuss… just for a happy medium…. … there was no part of my personality that was in that person, you know.. A dolly, to appease his life-style basically I changed when we went on strike When I did decide to…actually the change in me, and the change didn’t actually start until we erm went on strike and that was when people started noticing the change in me.. I started becoming very militant and erm actually became shop steward, I started to wear trousers more, … started to actually read books…and met Maya Angelou I wasn’t actually strong enough to say anything about it, so I didn’t and I resented that for a long time.. Struggle with husband-useless calling the police “I’ll sign off the mortgage if you sleep with me…” “it was pointless calling the police because (2) especially the fact that he was in the job, it is, and still is, an old boys network …. e:rm (2) I decided no, let me just get out now, whilst I'm alive and whilst he's still alive so that I don't end up spending time, Ex-spouse now co-parents “whereas now, he finishes work when he finishes work and he’s picked up R, you =know, it’s amazing…. They get to see him, I don’t need to..” the only person that I've ever felt (2) was my e- was my equal was a guy that I went out with before erm, and he was very strong, very opinionated, same as I am, and even though we argued, it was positive arguments, it was, it was more discussion than arguments so in that aspect, I could respect that, erm, we are, 'til today, best of friends I think we will be lifelong friends, because we're so/(cantankerous?) (small laugh)/ in our ways Arthur Sample 85 February 2010 Biographic Data Phases of Lived Life Phases of Mutating Subjectivity Thematic Field Analysis Phases of the ss1 Interview Telling History of the Case Evolution (columns 1-3 knitted together) 1939-45 b. London – eve of WW2 – German refugee family – many movements between flats – gradually improving financial position of family – 2 younger siblings 1945-57 House stabilises. Two schools. Passes exams at 16 and 18 well. 1957-8. Starts Uni History; leaves; 1959-64 Music School. Marries. 1964-2000 Career as concert pianist. 1972. Birth of son. 1. ‘Unremarkable’ war infancy, but remembers ‘jealousy’ of younger siblings ?? Difficult time?? 2. After birth of younger sibling, ‘Perfectly unhappy childhood’ because subject to considerable pressure to do well at academic subjects. Nonetheless ‘happy holiday PINs’ belies later retrospective ‘perfectly un happy’. 3. Secondary school ‘I realised I had to fight everybody: school, friends, parents, to be a musician’. PINs of some pressure but rarely as much pressure as he (self-heroisingly) asserts. 4. 18-20 University History ‘boring’ but ‘I at last discovered the music I wanted to play’. 5. 21-24 Music school. Marries. PINs show dependence on wife which is denied in told story. 6. 24 onwards. Anxious but arrogant career story. 7. 33 Birth of child – ‘My wife insisted, and I’ve grown to love him reasonably well: no bother’. Defying conformist expectation ‘I didn’t become either a historian or an art-dealer, but a musician’ – argument about resisting parental pressure for children – resisting peer and school pressure – ‘My own person’ [long argumentation] The music I play is ‘determinedly modern and appreciated by connoisseurs’ [long description of concert record and one small PIN with applause and a negative e review]. My personal history is not important – Staccato Report of schools, History at university, then music school – ‘Of course I have a wife and one child’ and ‘they are very proud of me’. No names or details. ‘Parents approved of my choice of wife’, and ‘eventually of my choice of career’. Born in London in 1939, Arthur eventually became a successful concert pianist, married with a child (BDA overview). His initial story (TFA overview) is in three parts: (1) early resolute defiance of pressure, (2) jump to current success and long detail of the ‘music I play’, (3) small brief report of ‘not important’ personal history (amplified in ss2). Knitting starts here War infancy with bombings, many shifts of address, birth of siblings. ‘Unremarkable’ he says, but ‘jealous’ of sister. Despite several ss2 PINs of happy holidays, he retro-declares (one PIN of being smacked) : a ‘perfectly unhappy childhood’. Perhaps as alibi against parents who later pressed against music? Lot of secondary school pressure to do history, ‘boring’…. Left Uni, then… Figure 8 Arthur Sample - knitting the three columns together – start of an example Comparing ‘Hypothesising questions’ in the BDA, in the TFA After the first chunk What Previous Hypotheses are strengthened by this new chunk? What Previous hypotheses are weakened by this new chunk? (Mark up) Hypothesising Biographical Data Analysis Thematic Flow Analysis Experiencing H How might this event have been experienced at the time? Why might the person be responding at this particular point in the way that s/he is? - Why this particular (new) response/topic? - Why in this particular (new) manner or textsort? - Why at this particular length? - Why have they stopped at the point they have? Following H: Overall Shaping Given such an experience of the event, how might this have shaped the course of the interviewee’s future? Given such an experience of this moment of the telling, how might this shape the future course of the interviewee’s telling? Following H: Immediate/soon after Given such an experience of the event, what further ‘chunk’ do you expect next/soon in the series of Biographical Data? Given such an experience at this point in the interview, what might happen next or soon in the interview? - change of speaker? - change of topic? - change of textsort? - other change? Structural H for the whole series At this point, what hypothesis do you think might turn out to be true for the pattern of (i) the current Phase of the lived life? (ii) For the whole Biographical track? At this point, what hypothesis do you think might turn out to be the overall Theme for (i) the pattern of the current Phase of the telling of the told story? (ii) For the Whole Pattern of the telling-of- the- told-story? What do you feel might be the significance of this datum? What do you feel might be the significance in their life of the experienced event? What might emerge as the significant ‘hidden agenda’ or the ‘objective strategy’ of the teller in this telling? Figure 9 Questions for BDA and TFA Hypothesisings Please bear in mind that there is always at least one level of experiencing to be ‘imagined’ in both the BDA and the TFA, but there is usually one more level at the TFA telling of the story: 1. At the time of the original events (Biographic chunk in the living of the lived life), the individual may be reminded of earlier, and imagine future, events, but may not. This might be a ‘simple experiencing’. 2. When telling the story about earlier events (Told Story chunk in the telling of the told story), they are both remembering one or more earlier moments of that life (let us say an original event) but they are also in the event of this moment of the interview; therebye adding a further level of complexity to ‘what they might be experiencing in the interview at the time of choosing to not-tell, to tell, and how to tell. This has normally got to be a minimum of a ‘double experiencing’. Figure 10 Questions for BDA Panel Questions for interpreting biographical data Given this new datum in the chronology, retrospect 1. which previous hypotheses seem to be those rendered more plausible or even confirmed? Given this new datum in the chronology, now and future A) How could this have been experienced? in relation to the context of Emotionality, defendedness and ambivalence, as well as Age, personal development, family, generation, and milieu? (Experiencing Hypotheses) B) For each suggested Experiencing Hypothesis, you could suggest one or more Following-hypotheses, asking the question What might this have meant for the forming of the focal individual’s future from that point on? 3. And then identify possible candidates for a C) Structural-hypothesis, for the whole life, or for this phase of the whole life Then go to the next new datum, and repeat (Breckner, 1998: 93 modified) Alternative more holistic Q?: “What do you feel might be the significance of this datum?” Figure 11 Four types of hypothesising in panels About the ‘defended subject’: the interviewee About the defended panel member / researcher themselves E- motional- experiencing hypotheses Welcomed/ less welcomed ‘sides’ of an ambivalence [fertile default assumption for a defended subjectivity] Following hypotheses In the series, what might come next or soon? Structural hypotheses What might be the pattern of the series as a whole? (LL/TS) Subjective response [counter-transference] hypotheses [defended subjectivity E/motional exp] “Why might I/we be thinking of these H’s?, really wanting them to be true?; wanting other H’s to be not true, to be not raised, to be not even thought about?” E/mEx H-1 FH-1 SH-1 SR / CTH-1 Counter-hyp? Counter -hyp? Counter-hyp? Counter-hyp? Tangential-hyp Tangential-hyp Tangential -hyp Tangential-hyp All may be true-ish at different levels All may be fertile! All may be true-ish at different levels All may be true-ish at different levels for (different) people Figure 12 Rosenthal strategy heavily modified “On the one hand we tried to · reconstruct what the [subject] actually experienced during this sequence of their life, and, · on the other hand, · to analyse how they present their life in a present-day interview... What we are aiming to achieve is an understanding of the history of the evolution of the [subject]’s present perspective. -------------------------------------------------------------------- We identify · at what point of the text, in what sequence, they speak about certain parts of their lives; and we reconstruct · the mechanisms (pattern of selection/action) behind the themes they choose to talk about and the experiences they choose to tell, and the way they choose to tell them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As regards the way the told story is told, We assume that it is by no means coincidental and insignificant when [self-]biographers Argue about one phase of their lives, get stuck at the level of generic or typical accounts (GINs) but about something else narrate a PIN at great length and with much feeling, and then give only a brief Report of yet another part of their lives, or Describe the circumstances of their lives in detail. And if their Evaluation(s) of their narrative or narratives – the moral(s) that they draw from their life as a whole and from particular events -- differs from our own, that is also important.* We also assume that how we are positioned by the interviewee and our fluctuations of ‘felt lived experiencing’ during the interview are important clues as aspects of the intersubjective interaction [TW] (heavily modified after Gabriele Rosenthal, Holocaust, 1998: 4-5)” Figure 13 DARNE / DRAPES Box: (S=condensed situation) Pre-action* Post-action* DESCRIPTION Eternal qualities of entities, persons, landscapes, systems, contexts – no movement/ no history, no events Present perspective ARGUMENTATION Theorising, attitude-pronouncing, position-taking, arguing …. Start Middle Global End EVALUATION ‘moral’ or ‘motto’ of the story (Report or PIN) The ‘moral’ of a particular story (PIN or Report) or (in case of a “global” evaluation) the ‘moral’ of the biographical account as a whole, ultimately of the life as a whole REPORT Experience-distant, little or no emotional involvement, bare police report in ‘cold fact’ terms, as if an ‘outsider’, like a BDC ‘story about’ Condensed Situation GINs (and TINs) Generic incident narrative – “the way things always happen(ed)” Typical incident narrative – “imagined-average vignette” Episodic (one incident) Epic (many incidents) PARTICULAR iNCIDENT nARRATIVE (PINs) About-PINs IN-PINs “So there we are, at the bar…, a Saturday evening…he said…she said…I did…I’m thinking… I’m feeling….. I can see it right now… It’s very strange…..Then what happened was… Afterwards I felt…. Quite a critical moment, because….” Indicate MIXED TEXTSORTS with dominant component first : e.g. “REP/narr” * = The ‘action’ in question is that related in the Central Event Sequence (see QRI p.254) which can be narratively recounted in thin REPORT and/or rich PIN form. Spectrums: A. REPORTs… and PINs…. all can be seen to be on a spectrum of thin-ness and rich-ness of (i) particular incident detail and (ii) apparent emotional closeness / distance. B. ARGUMENTATION … and… EVALUATION lie on a spectrum of relative detachment from a REP/PIN account . Only DESCRIPTION does not lie on a spectrum. [A GIN or TIN can be seen as a ‘Description’ in the form of a narrative]. A CONDENSED SITUATION is a non-narrative ‘Description’ which might conceal narrative potential. Figure 14 Instructions for sequentialisation exercise Sequentialisation (TSS) exercise - instructions Target: 1 difference per page (2 segments) but be forced upwards if there’s a difference of focus or mode of speech that would be silly to miss Goal? – two or three segments per page (8-12 in toto) Procedure -= on the transcript itself – ON YOUR OWN 1) First identify any obvious PINs 2) Then identify Evaluations [of PIN or REPORT], and any GLOBAL – evaluations (past/present) 3) Then not-to-be-ignored differences of TOPIC and or of (other) TEXTSORT. . Shift between mixed textsorts if appropriate (e.g. REPORT/eval -à EVAL/report). THEN TOGETHER DISCUSS DIFFERENCES THEN, ON YOUR OWN, Procedure – on blank matrix 1) Fill in the forms with pure or mixed textsorts and with enough ‘economical gist’ to remind you (and your panel) of the verbatim transcript that it summarises. 2) Distinguish your paraphrasing gist from direct quotes by using ‘inverted commas’ for the quote-words 3) Think about supra-topic segments Zoom-in for start? Zoom-in for coda and end? Note your questions, debate, and treasure differences: there is no one right version No ‘single correct’ TSS: only fitness for purposes. Purposes? 1. Segments for a TFA panel and after 2. Sufficient but not too many segments to see the pattern of the wood Figure 15 Matrix blank for creating a sequentialisation (TSS) Target for 4 pages 6-12 chunks (top-down, how few can you get away with?) Could there be just one change per page? Try it, and be forced into higher number of changes! Blank Matrix – for working on e.g. Janette EXAMPLE FROM ANOTHER CASE: SARAH Page/line no Line bulk Textsort / speaker Gist – brief indication of content 1/1-8 8 SQUIN M: ‘story of life and personal relationships’, repeated core, ‘begin wherever you like’ 1/10 1 Question S: ‘Where do I start?’ 1/12 1 SQUIN part M: ‘wherever you want…time…won’t interrupt’ 1/15 ARG S: ‘I’ll start in a chronological order so that I follow some logic’ 1/16-22 6 REP Whole life – childhood to now - born A. (father’s town) - grew up in a nearby town B. - University in C. – Marketing & finance - Married and worked in C. for 18 years - for past 10 years, in Sofia CASE OF JANETTE – YOUR FIRST DRAFT OF A SEQUENTIALISATION Page/line no Line bulk Textsort / speaker Can be mixed, e.g. REP/desc; DESCR/rep DESCRIP/REP Gist – brief indication of content Can be with single quotation marks [‘’] Mostly will be your paraphrase summary [no quotes] Give a main heading, and then subtopics in order, as above in (‘Whole life up to now’ +) 1/ Figure 16 A sketch of a two perspective model for a quasi-Harold This is an example of trying to identify a two-phase model of ‘mutating subjectivity’ for a particular person on the basis of data from both sub-sessions (and fieldnotes, etc.). Current perspective is on the right in red; reconstructed earlier perspective up to beginning of mining career is in blue. See QRI for more data on ‘Harold’. ‘Blue quotes’ are how he might have talked from within that earlier perspective. BDA Current perspective at age 38 A weak softie again, unless he/I can push people about in his (cushy) job.. Not a job for a man 90- Social worker Luck + compromise Regret not taking exams at 16? “Be here earlier”? “Not a challenging society” 85-90 Death of the mines Should have gone with the stronger bullies 84-85 NUM vs. Thatcher war “Do it again but with eyes wider open” ? 76-84 Life as activist NUM miner under and above ground My life took off.. solidarity + continuity in struggle..or you’re a goner. Revolution!! Perspective at age 15- hypothesis 72-76 Bully at school, carer at home I’ve learned slowly to look out for myself… you’re on your own in this life… a jungle.. my mother died, so what? 70-72 Death of mother, village and school moves “I don’t think I’ve ever recovered from it” I was a softie 60-70 Ordinary large family THE TRANSCRIPT ETC Figure 17 Questions for doing, and for after, a TFA SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE THEMATIC FIELD ANALYSIS AFTER EACH NEW DATUM-CHUNK IS PRESENTED… Now -> 1. Why might the interviewee be presenting this particular topic , and why at this point? Why is he or she using this specific sort of text to present it? Why might he or she have stopped where (s)he did at the end of the chunk? What might they be experiencing: in respect of past? in respect of the present interview situation? 2. How might we interpret the significance of all this? THEN Textové pole: (not relevant by definition for the first datum-chunk presentation, but for the 2nd and later ones) 2. What previous hypotheses are strengthened by this datum? (Are any decisively negated?) THEN 3. Considering the next datum-chunk to come, if any of the above hypotheses are true, what might happen next? More specifically, which textsort, or change of speaker, or topic might occur next, (following hypotheses – next item) FH 4. What might be the overall pattern of the TSS from now on? (following hypotheses – overall pattern) SH 5. How might we revise our previous understanding of the thematic field of the whole telling- of –the-told story? What hypotheses and counter-hypotheses about the whole (or the current) thematic field suggest themselves at this stage? What might be the hidden agenda of the ‘defensive subject’[DEL: hidden either consciously or unconsciously :DEL] ? TFH[1] At the end, after the last chunk has been presented: retrospectively -> 1) What pattern do you get from the FLOW analysis? 2) End-game: what pattern do you get from the overall FIELD review? Textové pole: 4. In which details were the single experiences or topics presented, and why? 5. Which topics were addressed? Which biographical experiences, events, and periods were covered and which might be plausibly conjectured to be ‘omitted’? Why? 6. What material came up in subsession 2 (as a result of further questioning) that was omitted from the initial narration in subsession 1? Why did this happen (best explanation)? 7. What is the significance of the detail, the sequence, the inclusions and exclusions, the emphases and evaluations? in which they were presented? Overall interview patterning? The work below does NOT normally get done in panel…….. The default goal is to arrive at the best Thematic Field Hypothesis that states, to the panel’s least dissatisfaction, ‘what the whole self-presentation and representation in the interview’ was all about. This is not the same as what the presumed conscious goal or intention of the interviewee was about. Figure 18 Three-way comparison - conceptual matrix 2 and 3-way comparison of changing case-evolutions in changing contexts.8 Driven journeys, quest journeys, driven quests, neither…or in part………? Issues, inner and outer resources, strategies, contingent accidents * Move to case-essence in order to get to case-evolution; or vice-versa? * Give yourself 3 minutes silent reflection on the 2 cases before talking. * Doodle an image, key-contrasts, unexpected similarities, * 2-7 cartoons per case to show start-to-end ‘movement of the case-history’ * 1 cartoon/image per case to show ‘case-essence’ Different strategies for similar events, similar strategies for different events? Patterns of change of circumstances, of perspectives, of strategies? Concrete evolution of case-history -> leads to -> algebra/metaphor of case-dynamics Comparative ‘wordless image’ of compared case-essences of Case A and (Case B – Similarities between cases (journeys ) of Case A and Case B Differences between cases (journeys) of Case A and Case B verbal list? verbal list Then , after a third case (3) has been presented (e.g. Case C) Similarities of case-evolution between a pair How is the ‘third’ different case-evolution Case Aand Case B verbal list? Case C’s is different verbal list? Case A and Case C verbal list? Case B is different verbal list? Case B and Case C verbal list? Case A is different verbal list? Comparative ‘image (s)’ of compared case-evolutions of Case A, B, and C – 3 types of ‘some thing’, of ‘some history-of-things’ Go for ‘dynamics of the case-evolutions as wholes’. Acknowledge difference. Use images/metaphors. Later: reflect on the ‘implicit concept-dimensions’ of the concrete comparison-assertions that you’re using (Generalities used in constructing the particular account). This gives you the emergent ‘comparative theory in use’ [algebra of case-dynamics] that your group has been using because for comparing these cases, they seem to be salient. But don’t feel you have to use these ‘implicit dimensions’ for the next case. Other cases might have a quite different list! Wait for saturation! You may find it easier to look at the worked-through example on the next page first. H (SinS)// HiSS/TUFF Historical (Subjectivities in Situations) Unique descriptions with proper names Abstract descriptions with conceptual terms Historical (Subjectivities In Situations) Subjectivity In ESSENCE Situation Changing subjectivities In PHASES Changing situations The vertical movement is from ‘essence of the SinS case’ to ‘phasing the history’ of the case. Pluralisation of the ‘case’ into ‘cases’ further suggests the need for seeing your particular focal ‘subjectivity’ in relation to its ‘co-subjectivities’, a relational approach to H (SINs). The initial horizontal movement is from ‘concrete descriptions of particular cases’ towards ‘abstract concepts that could cover several cases’ The further horizontal movement (not on this sheet) is from (a) ‘‘abstract concepts that could cover several cases’ emergent in the 2+1 rotation method into (b) a fully-worked over and integrated conceptualisation (new unified theory-language) that can then ‘redescribe’ the intial particular cases, but which can be used also to re-describe all relevant past cases as well! (c ) After that comes your engagement with the implicit theory-language of your research-community or policy/activist-community in to whose languages you have to translate your findings and create the emotional experience of the cases and case material so as to engage with them. (d) If you can get them to accept your own new unified theory-language as developed in (b), congratulations: you will have achieved a paradigm-shift in their thinking! But you will probably have to be content with trying to destabilise and change their existing paradigm-language in the direction your written up presented cases require: anomalies for their assumption s!! (SinS) Concrete-> abstract; essence -> phases Unique descriptions with proper names Abstract descriptions with conceptual terms Subjectivity In Situations (SinS) (HiSST^2) Subjectivity in Situation Lola thinks her mother is possessive Daughter thinks mother is overwhelming and to be kept at a distance In a situation / life-phase where In a situation / life-phase where Lola needs to be ‘not meshed into’ that big family Mother may have a quite different perspective / daughters have to live their own lives and ally with siblings not parents Changing subjectivities Harold shifts from thinking the mining community will hold together forever into thinking that he was naïve and some people engaged in social treachery Member of close community shifts from imagining unshakeable unity into thinking that he was mistaken and wrong and the community was betrayed under pressure in Through a situation Through a situation Changing situations In which pre-1984 solidarity led to a year long struggle of [scabs +government +/police + media] versus [strikers + supporters] In which an early community effective solidarity came under massive ruling regime pressure and was broken open, and the material base of the community was then destroyed. The abstract questions (Greimas partially historicised) What are the ‘drivers’ of X’s life? Dynamics/strategies What have been the helps, what the hindrances? Resources/problems What stages/phases have they passed through (at least 1, 2-5-7) ‘Then’-perspectives ‘Then’—situated- subjectivities Where are they now on their path? With what choices? Strategies/location ‘Now’-perspective ‘Now—situated subjectivities What would make future A more likely than future B? ? Glocal Contradictions Model Concrete to abstract, essence to phases In general, the abstract concepts of use emerge more richly out of the unique descriptions with proper names. The movement is often from left to right, and from top-down ‘essence’ to next row ‘mutations/working through’. Partial-abstractions to unified conceptualisation However once the 2+1 rotation of three cases has achieved fairly general concepts in the boxes, then these ‘part-theoretical descriptions/propositions’ need to be worked upon to produce a rich whole-concept ‘Generalising theory of your own’ which is fully adequate to the ‘particularising descriptions’ in which it originated. [‘Condense and expand document’ p: 7 above last two thin boxes on right]. Your Generalising-and-Particularising Theory ->THEN LATER, engaging with ‘their’s!’ Having achieved such a GPT (Generalising and Particularising Theory of your own, you then need to engage with “ their ‘generalisations and cases’”, where ‘they’ are your various academic, active e citizen or policy audiences (or whoever). This means investigating the ‘discursive/researchive community’ you wish to influence and discovering their implicit GPT+cases. ________________________________ [1] Thematic Field Hypotheses: structural hypotheses about the whole thematic field past and future. “It’s all been about X, and my guess is that it will stay that way!” is the form.