Hi

The seminar in question was about comparisons of subjectivity across
narrative research and if people were left considering the nature of
selves in narrative then that was the point.  I don't think any of the
speakers held an 'extreme subjectivist' position (as the panel
discussion showed) but were producing a range of different positions
about selves in narrative.  Indeed the panel discussion focused on the
nature of truth claims and when academics were making them and how they
justified them - this is not being inconsistent.  Researchers comment on
methods and approaches other than their own - including mine - without
having practiced them - as the BNIM day I attended showed.  I found such
comments helpful in thinking about what the issues were in relation to
my chosen methodology and epistemology.

Best wishes

Bogusia

Bogusia Temple
Professor of Health and Social Care Research 
01772 895461
>>> Tom Wengraf <[log in to unmask]> 03/28/07 12:48 PM >>>
PEOPLE  NOT CALLED CAROLINE, PLEASE SEE HER ORIGINAL MEMO BELOW TO MAKE
SENSE OF MY RESPONSE!

 

Dear Caroline,

 

Thanks for your email.  

 

The main issue in my mind was whether the person had done a training in
BNIM
or had just read or heard about it. If she had done a 5-day training,
and if
she had done one interview using BNIM (so she was talking from
experience),
then that would be very interesting. If she had just read (what?) about
it
or heard about it, then her contribution is less interesting. 

 

There is an extreme  subjectivist rhetoric  in talk about research which
either (1) denies that there is any objective reality (ontology), or (2)
denies that any of our versions of such a reality can be thought to be
better or worse than any other (relativist epistemology). In such talk
about
research, there is an implicit oddity because those involved still want
to
call their own activity  research  or even  scientific research  and
usually
demand funding on the basis that they are  doing science . [I have no
critique of those who do not claim any of the funding or status that
goes
with the notion of  science  or  research : there are some of those, and
they have my respect because of their consistency]. But for those who do
claim funding, cover, status, access under the heading of what we might
call
 science  or the  pursuit of knowledge , they cannot in all honesty and
consistency use that  subjectivist rhetoric  in either or both of the
two
forms I have identified above. This does not stop them doing it   in an
inconsistent  way   it just means that their position is inconsistent
and
not to be taken seriously.

 

Assuming that the speaker you mention did not make either of these
 subjectivist claims , then my own feeling is that I am not sure on what
basis she is making her  damming assertions . In your own experience of
the
discussions in the trainings and your reading of the longer version of
the
current Guide to BNIM, I would say that the process of interpretation
(in
the panels particularly) does pay attention to the intersubjectivity
between
the interviewer and the interviewee, and that of the panel members among
themselves and between themselves and the interviewer-interviewee
subjectivity that they are studying. I think you would need to consult
your
own  experience of the trainings and the panels  to see whether  no
attention is paid  to counter-transference and subjective response of
the
interviewer/researchers involved. What has your experience been? Do you
feel
that your experience of either the BNIM methods in principle or our
actual
practice of them provides evidence for her accusation?

 

It is true that BNIM (especially in the textbook) does not  require 
people
using it to subscribe to psychoanalytic theory of counter-transference
or
Bourdieu s theory of the sociological positioning of the standpoint of
the
researcher: this is to leave people free to explore and develop their
experience in the way they think fit. On the other hand, the actual
practice
of panel work involving looking at the co-activity of the two partners
in
the interview transcript as summarized in the sequentialisation in my
experience invariably does lead to explorations of intersubjectivity.

 

It is true that, like any activity that claims to be  scientific
research ,
BNIM does attempt to get towards a greater objectivity about the
intersubjective processes it s studying than any random approach might
make.
If this is what is meant by  claiming a researcher objective stance ,
then
all social science of a non-dishonest nature is always attempting to
move
towards this. But such  relative objectivity  is never given as
a\pregiven
gift; if at all achieved, it is always partially and incompletely
achieved.
That s my position, but BNIM specifies procedures not positions.,.,,

 

Since these matters are of interest to others, I am copying this to the
group and hoping that you and others may reply to clarify this issue,
which
is certainly a very important one. [I think this matter has been raised
before in some form on the email list with a response by me (or it might
have been QUAL-RS in the USA), but I m afraid I don t have time to track
it
down. A grandson to collect!]

 

Best wishes

 

Tom

 

24a PrincesAvenue

Muswell Hill

London N10 3 LR

UK

 

020-8883-9297

 

   _____  

From: Nicholson, Caroline [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 28 March 2007 11:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: BNIM and reflexivity

 

Dear Both, 

Hope you are well. CD of recording and evaluation form in the post. I
hope
you don t mind me contacting you but I went to an ESRC narrative seminar
series on Friday at Edinburgh. One of the speakers there was incredibly
damming about BNIM really as I understand it because she saw BNIm as
claiming a researcher objective stance and not paying attention to the
inter
related nature of researcher and subject in the interview and analysis
process. (She was particularly critical of this in relation to the
reflecting teams)

 Although she clearly has her own agenda I am left wondering about the
construction of self and selves in BNIM method. I know Tom you have said
that there is not a theoretical stance that Brim takes but it does seem
to
me that the notion of agency (very dear to sociologists it seems) is
important in the method and what is the positioning of the researcher. I
am
aware for myself that how hard I push for pins, how I introduce the
work,
what I do prior to the interview all work to the transference and
counter
transference or subjectivity if I can use these terms interchangeably. 

 

I am struggling because I think the method is great and I am so excited
about the use of imagination, etc in our work and I think
intersubjectivity
is important in method and analysis. None of this is new to you I am
sure
but I would appreciate your comments.

 

 

 

Thank-you Caroline 

 

 

 

Caroline Nicholson

Doctoral Research Fellow

Care for Older Adults Research Team

St. Bartholomew School Of Nursing & Midwifery

City University

Philpot Street

London

E1 2EA

Tel 0207040 5350

email:  [log in to unmask]

 


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/736 - Release Date:
27/03/2007
16:38



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/736 - Release Date:
27/03/2007
16:38