ABSTRACT

This article opens with a problematisation of how one can meaningfully discuss the concept of quality in a methodology as notoriously ‘murky’ as narrative research. Unlike other kinds of qualitative approaches, there is a lack of consensus of what constitutes narrative, much less a clearly prescribed protocol for ascertaining evaluation. It then proceeds by outlining three features of narrative research (the importance of stories, the ‘messy’ nature of the data, and the attention to temporality), and then provides a close reading of an extract of an interview with a political activist who describes how she made her decision to break the law. Finally, drawing on the previous discussion, there is a non-exhaustive checklist of quality indicators for narrative research.

摘要

这篇文章首先提出了一个问题，即如何在像叙事研究一样臭名昭著的“模糊不清”的方法论中有意义地讨论质量概念。与其他类型的定性方法不同，对于叙述的构成缺乏共识，更不用说确定评估的明确规定的协议。然后，它概述了叙事研究的三个特征（故事的重要性、数据的“混乱”性质以及对时间的关注），然后仔细阅读了对一位政治活动家的采访摘录，他描述了她是如何做出违法决定的。最后，根据前面的讨论，有一个用于叙述研究的质量指标的非详尽清单。