Peter
At 06:08 PM 11/11/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Thanks for the responses to and comments on my message on writing
>narrative. I'm dividing my responses in 2 messages, this one on narrative,
>the other on Michigan.
>
>Lenora de la Luna wrote:
>
>>I am not sure if I am reading your post correctly, but it seems to me that
>>you have placed a sharp division between "narrative" and "quantitative
>>analysis." I wonder, though, if these are appropriate
>>comparisons. It sounds as if you are comparing a final product (a
>>narrative) with an analysis (quantitative).
>
>...and I think this is quite right; I glossed over a distinction here. But
>I think the point I was trying to make stands. Not too long ago I
>co-taught a course on Integrated Research Methods, where we examined
>quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis, and set these within
>discussion of interpretive and empirical-analytic research paradigms. I
>came to think that it's very tough to do a quantitative analysis that
>doesn't take for granted many of the assumptions about knowledge and
>reality of the second of these two paradigms; assumptions which I don't
>share. I think this is certainly true of quantitative "explanatory"
>analysis; perhaps less true of "descriptive" analysis.
>
>And diane says:
>
>>theory is good. theory is thinking. it's ideas. everyone has ideas.
>>everyone has theories.
>>only some of us get paid to read and write about theories: but this ought
not
>
>It's probably dangerous to generalize too much about something as complex
>and varying as "theory," but, thinking of Harold Garfinkel, I'll make the
>claim that theoretical discourse aims to make claims that are
>non-indexical; that's to say, require no reference to time, to place, or to
>speaker to be understood. When we're dealing with human actions and
>events, such statements strike me as leaving the meat behind. Leaving the
>culture behind. Leaving the human behind. And (another pot-shot at
>quantitative analysis-sorry, David, nothing personal. I respect the
>intelligence and integrity of most people who do such work)
>quantitification excises the indexical so early on, at the coding or
>categorization stage, that we hardly notice.
>
>I think Randy is on the same track when he writes:
>
>>And I have read some research that is
>>structured as narrative that I thought would have been more clearly
structured
>>categorically, especially since the balance of expository and narrative
tipped
>>toward the expository, the outside-of-time, the always-true. (I don't
>>know why
>>they chose narrative, except as an academic statement of affiliation -
>>something else that's always true of genres.)
>
>The structure of narrative is one that makes use of temporality; drawing
>the reader into events unfolding in time, and so conveying the
>open-endedness of life and history. A narrative doesn't make claims that
>are true for all time, but aims to capture, to invoke a time and place (as
>Musil invokes Vienna at the turn of the century-thanks, Randy!); it's left
>up to the reader to figure out the relevance to *their* time and place.
>
>But both these points just scratch the surface of complex issues.
>
>(By the way when Lenora asks:
>
>>But what happens when the people you've worked with say, "where the hell
>>did you get _that_ from? you've got it all wrong. . . ." For me, this is
>>where much of the interesting stuff takes place.
>
>I agree whole-heartedly.)
>
>Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>================
>Martin Packer
>Associate Professor
>Department of Psychology
>Duquesne University
>Pittsburgh PA 15282
>
>(412) 396-4852
>fax: (412) 396-5197
>
>packer who-is-at duq3.cc.duq.edu
>http://www.duq.edu/liberalarts/gradpsych/packer/packer.html
>
>
>