>The work I've described was intended as participatory research; that's to
>say, one outcome that I was seeking from analysis was a change in practice,
>rather than (just) a theory. I can't claim to have achieved that, but the
>aim has guided the way I'm writing about the research. It's said that the
>two major modes of discourse are assertion/argument and narrative: I've
>chosen the second. I'm writing a *story* about the community schools.
>
I'm wondering about your separation of narrative from argument (as typical
theory) as distinct academic discourse modes. I'm often struck by the
mixture of genres and their purposes in research--movement through
narratives and back to argument, the argumentative purposes of many
narratives, etc.
Why narrative, and is it just narrative? Also, couldn't Blum's quote about
reinventing oneself in theory-building be recast with respect to narrative
(e.g. Geertz)?
Do you link narrative somehow more strongly to the possibilities of change,
or primarily to the mapping of change (including how it constructs your
position in the study)?
Kevin
Kevin Leander
Doctoral Student, Curriculum & Instruction
390 Education, 1310 S. Sixth St.
Champaign, IL 61820-6990
(217) 384-0256