The Main Methodological Commitments Of Dialogical Narrative Analysis
Once the interviews, journaling, and diagram have been completed, the interviews must be transcribed. After transcription, the data will be analyzed using dialogical narrative analysis. Through the lens of dialogical narrative analysis, or DNA, stories help people reconsider who the are and what their place is within their communities (Frank, 2012). DNA asks “what is the storyteller’s art, through which she or he represents life in the form of a story? And what form of life is reflected in such a representation, including the resources to tell particular kinds of stories, affinities with those who will listen to and understand such stories, vulnerabilities including not being able to tell an adequate story, and contests, including which version of a story trumps which other versions? ” (Frank, 2012, p. 34).
Dialogical narrative analysis has five foundational methodological commitments (Frank, 2012). The first methodological commitment is “to recognize that any individual voice is actually a dialogue between voices” (Frank, 2012, p. 34). In addition to both the researcher and the participant impacting the narrative, in DNA the participant’s story is created from multiple voices the participant has heard and pieces of previous stories, an amalgamation of their own and others’ stories (Frank, 2012). Ultimately, “to practice DNA is to sustain a tension between dialogue and analysis” and the “concern is how to speak with a research participant rather than about him or her” (Frank, 2012, p. 34; original emphasis). The second methodological commitment is to remain focused on the collective stories of many who have had similar experiences rather than a singular experience (Frank, 2012). This allows “diffuse voices into contact with each other, enabling each voice to be heard alongside other voices that expressed similar experiences, thus giving shape to what could become a dialogue” (Frank, 2012, p. 36). In DNA, the researcher acts as a witness who gathers voices “to give them more evocative force so that these storytellers could hear each other, and so that they could be heard collectively” (Frank, 2012, p. 36).
The third methodological commitment is to recognize that stories take on a life of their own (Frank, 2012). People not only constantly tell stories, but people are innately attuned to stories as well (Frank, 2012). A story does not exist without a human to tell it, but humans also need stories to represent their experiences (Frank, 2012). Frank (2012) argues that human expression is only possible because there are already so many stories ready to be adapted into our own stories and that these stories shape our sense of self. The stories available to us are limited (and thus our sense of self) by “the resources we have available to tell our own story, as well as by the stories we are told about people like us” (Frank, 2012, p. 36). The fourth methodological commitment is the recognition that each person is an “unfinalized” version of themself and respecting their “capacity for continuing change” (Frank, 2012, p. 36, 37). While individual participants will continually change, what stays that same are narrative resources - “character types, plot lines, and genres” - which allows for conclusions to be drawn (Frank, 2012, p. 37).
The last methodological commitment is to not summarize findings, but “to open continuing possibilities of listening and of responding to what is heard” (Frank, 2012, p. 37). The goal is that there is an increased possibility for people “hearing themselves and others” and an expanded “sense of responsibility” in people to how they will respond (Frank, 2012, p. 37). Instead of telling people how to respond, DNA aims to “show what is at stake in a story as a form of response” (Frank, 2012, p. 37).
