Narrative Inquiry Versus Content Analysis: A Comparative Review of Qualitative Researches

When the reviewer first heard about narrative inquiry she thought that it is impossible to have it as research method in the way that it is too subjective and mostly are inconclusive, until then the lecturer teaching Qualitative Research Methodology talked about humanism, and since then the reviewer changed her mind. Yes, narrative can be an inquiry and here is a comparative review on a dissertation using the inquiry and a thesis using content analysis. The one with narrative inquiry is entitled Inventing Teacher-Writers written by Christine Dawson, a doctorate candidate in Michigan State University, while the other one is Gender Bias in An English Textbook for Junior High School Students written by Noni Mia Rahmawati, a graduate student of Malang State University. Rahmawati’s thesis is chosen in this review for it is qualitative research and the reviewer knows her quite well.

This review is written not only to fulfill the final project of the lecture of Qualitative Research Methodology, but also to broaden the reviewer’s view in advance, with the fact that research methodology development used in the country where the reviewer lives is somewhat has much further left behind. This review is just the beginning.

The approach used by Dawson in Inventing Teacher-Writer is both Ethnography and Narrative Inquiry, where she uses ethnography to gather the talk and the texts from the thirteen months of writing group meetings using fieldnotes, audiotape and transcription, shared texts gathering, annotation and coding, and memos, and she uses narrative inquiry in both the analysis and the report.

On the other hand, Rahmawati uses content analysis to verify the hypothesis whether there is a gender bias in the textbook or not. She takes the data in the form of language items and images.         

Narrative Inquiry vs Content analysis

First, let’s discuss the similarities between the two researches. The similarities are about the subjects criteria, data collection, instrument, validation, and whether the procedures are clear to follow or replicate and whether the methodological information good or bad. Next, let’s discuss the differences that touch the chaptering/heading/sub-heading and the way the researchers narrate the research and quote theories.

Dawson does not mention any criteria in selecting the subjects, however, it is very clear that she got them by offering to the students who were about to graduate from college. She told them that she wants to have a writing group and continue writing with them, and that she wants to be a member, not an instructor anymore. This kind of getting subjects for narrative inquiry is beneficial in the way that the participants responding to Dawson’s invitation are the ones she knows well. Jenna, Chloe, Karen, and Nell were her students who then work as teacher in different schools and different states. In narrative Inquiry, researchers should try to create a sense of mutual trust between themselves and participants (Moriarty, 2011: 24).

In contrary, Rahmawati mentions her subjects selection explicitly, that she got them by simply taking the language items and images from English textbook of grade 7. She also mentions about two criteria in dividing the items and images. Each subject has their own criteria. She used theoretical background to strengthen the criteria.

Dawson collects the data using using fieldnotes, audiotape and transcription, shared texts gathering, annotation and coding, and memos from the writing group where the participants wrote their experience in their first year of teaching, unlike Rahmawati who does it simply by taking the language items and images from the chosen book. This also works for the instrument, that Dawson uses the tools mentioned above while Rahmawati uses two sets of criteria.

These two researches have both been validated. The narrative one has been validated by the participants request to continue the writing group, the instruments Dawson used in getting the data, and also the checking through calling and audiotaping. In narrative inquiry, researcher uses exemplar validation (see Pinnegar and Hamilton, 2011). The content analysis has been validated through the use of both data collection and instruments which based on previous theories.

Both the researches are replicable, however, the content analysis is easier to replicate. Although they are easy to replicate, Rehn reminds readers that they would fail to reproduce exact research for it is not reproducible (2010, 197). The clear procedure makes them easy to replicate but readers should be aware that they do not use the same inequalities found in the researches (Moriarty, 2011: 24).

Information on methodology in the researches are good. Dawson mentions in detail how she started the writing group, getting the data, collecting them, and validated them in narrative inquiry point of view. She also repeats her explanation in more detailed way in the appendix B. Dawson also follows the rule in narrative inquiry that is hiding the identity of her research subjects for their safety and comfort, although it becomes dillema in the inquiry, for it is against the law of online use and the demand for ethical issues (see also Moriarty, 2011: 25). Dawson also uses table to share their writing and make it based on dates and genre. Rahmawati also mentions her methodology in detail, starts when she selected the textbook, level, and sets of criteria until the data analysis, although in Indonesia, literary studies are still misjudged.

In her dissertation, Dawson uses implicit chaptering, heading, and sub-heading. Readers would find difficulty in getting the point to problem statements, methodology, or subjects criteria. Readers need to read the whole dissertation and while reading they should take notes. Dawson simply wrote her research report in a narrative way. She divides it in seven chapters with headings and sub-headings following narrative style. For example, chapter 1: Inventing Teacher-Writers, where she overviewed literature, the benefits of writing, constraints and challenges, and so on that underlie her reasons in doing the research. In this chapter, Dawson also mentions information about her inquiry. Although it is a bit difficult to guess the content, this way of chaptering/heading/sub-heading is somehow gives value to the researcher dissertation since the readers are challenged to read all parts and that is more classy rather than having pages passed and considered trash by readers.

On the other hand, Rahmawati uses explicit chaptering, heading, and sub-heading that makes the readers easy to find information they want by looking up the chapter. Like in other common research reports, Rahmawati divides the thesis into five chapters; Introduction, research method, results, discussion, and the last is conclusion and suggestion. From the way she divides the chapters, we can easily guess the content, and that means we do not need to read all parts to get certain information.

Readers would not find Inventing Teacher-Writers as bookish dissertation since it was written in a self-assured way, that she wrote her own opinion and understanding with support from other theories, in a language that is not so academical. The language is commonly used in daily interaction. Therefore, readers can easily understand her writing. She did not copy whole statements in other theories, but she used them as supporting ideas. Despite the issue on this, Rahmawati wrote her thesis in a bookish way, giving definition barely from copying other statements, and looked more inconfident. Rahmawati rarely gave her own opinion in the beginning, she did it deductively. She also used phrases that are often used by other researchers. For example, when she talked about the research design, she used the term “In collecting data,” twice and “The data is collected...”.The theories that support her research were developed in the end, unlike Dawson who create her own words and gave the theoretical background in the end.

For those who have not learned about narrative inquiry, they would consider Dawson’s Inventing Teacher-Writers as a bad research in format and validation, especially when they use quantitative methodology to judge it, compare it to other researches which is conventionally formatted and use numbers or statistical formulas.

In the reviewer’s opinion, Dawson’s dissertation has a good quality of research with modern taste that is called narrative inquiry where human thoughts, feelings, and experience are considered as invention. Teacher as the agent of change. They should write to enrich and inform their teaching, participate in discussing about teaching, and enrich their lives (Dawson, 2011). This way their knowledge of teaching and views of the wide world will develop continuously and they will be away of illiteracy. What Dawson has done to her ex-college students are dedication to her country, as she dedicated her times to develop their teaching although she gets benefit from the activity. It is the dedication that needs to be owned by all teachers in this world. In fact, new teachers usually have no chance of learning the experience of senior teachers, like what I had been through until I joined state high school. New teacher needs supervision from the seniors for they lack of experience. The sharing that Dawson has done surely inspires us of what to do if we are senior teachers or new teacher, that supervision can be done online and through writing our experience.

Below are the table of comparison between the two researches:

Points	Narrative Inquiry	Content Analysis
Chaptering/heading/sub-heading	Implicit	Explicit
Subjects criteria	Clear/logical	Clear/logical
Data collection	Logical	Logical
Instrument	Appropriate	Appropriate
Validation	Carried out-by	Carried out
Procedures	Clear  to follow/replicate	Clear to follow
Methodological information	Good in narrative inquiry Not bookish	Good Bookish

Malang, 9 July 2015