Opinion and Perspective
Taking a Narrative Turn: Possibilities,
Challenges and Potential Outcomes
Keith Ford
Waseda University“...a singular story, as every true story is singular, will inthe magic way of some things apply, connect, resonate,
touch a magic chord.” (Geoffrey Wolfe, 1985, p. 72).

It is now nearly twenty years since Alan Peshkin (1993) contributed “TheGoodness of Qualitative Research” (from which the above citation is taken) to
the journal Educational Researcher. His article focused on the potential outcomesof qualitative research and cautioned against being drawn into playing the
VFLHQWLÀF JDPH RI  MXGJLQJ VXFK UHVHDUFK RQ WKH EDVLV RI  SRVLWLYLVW YDOXHV
2QH PLJKW LPDJLQH WKDW WZHQW\ \HDUV RQ WKH ÀHOG RI  7()/7(6/ ZRXOGbe embracing qualitative research of a genuinely interpretive nature, and
WKDWWKLVZRXOGEHUHÁHFWHGE\SXEOLVKHGFRQWULEXWLRQVWRUHOHYDQWDFDGHPLF
journals, such as OnCUE Journal (OCJ). However, in the case of OCJ, it seems
to be coming overly reliant on research contributions founded on positivist
traditions using questionnaire and survey methods. In writing this article, I
hope to encourage more submissions to, and publication of, interpretive
research in this journal. I call particular attention to the possibilities, challenges
and potential outcomes of undertaking single-participant narrative studies
that focus on teachers’ UHÁHFWLYHSUDFWLFH (Schon, 1983) and individual teaching
journeys.
The development of narrative research in the area of teaching and education
KDVUHVXOWHGIURPDJURZLQJLQWHUHVWLQWHDFKHUUHÁHFWLRQDQGNQRZOHGJHUHODWHG
23

Ford

to classroom decision-making and the process of professional development&RUWD]]L ,WLVLQÁXHQFHGVWURQJO\E\WKHLGHDRI HPSRZHULQJWHDFKHUVWR YRLFH FULWLFDO H[SHULHQFHV UHÁHFWLQJ SHUVRQDO DQG VXEMHFWLYH PHDQLQJ LQ
WKHLU WHDFKLQJ OLYHV $V WHDFKHUV HQJDJH ZLWK QDUUDWLYH DV UHÁHFWLYH SUDFWLFH
the process provides opportunity for them to “explore and understand
KRZGLIIHUHQWVRFLDOFXOWXUDOKLVWRULFDODQGSHUVRQDOIDFWRUVLQÁXHQFHWKHLU
educational values and practices and their professional and personal identity”(Gill & Pryor, 2006, p. 288).
The narrative turn in the social sciences has been well-documented, including
publications on how that turn may be taken in the study of general teacher
education and the analysis of teaching life stories (Clandinin & Connelly,
2000; Goodson & Sikes, 2001; Munro, 1998). However, it is only in the lastÀYH\HDUVWKDW7(62/4XDUWHUO\DVDUHSUHVHQWDWLYHÁDJVKLSMRXUQDOIRUWKH
language teaching profession, has published narrative analytical inquiry into
single-participant teacher stories. For example, the story of a Chinese learner/
teacher’s resistance to the feelings of marginalization within the demands ofconforming to a Communicative Language Teaching paradigm (Tsui, 2007),and an exploration of a Chinese EFL teacher’s assessment practices (Xu &Liu, 2009). More recently, an entire issue of TESOL Quarterly (2011, Volume
45, 3) focused on the use of narrative data. This issue included Johnson and
Golombek’s (2011) application of a Vygotskyian socio-cultural perspective
9\JRWVN\    WR GHPRQVWUDWH KRZ WHDFKHUDXWKRUHG UHÁHFWLYH
journals can be analyzed to explore the transformative potential of narrative
as a meditational tool for the externalization, verbalization, and systematic
examination of teacher development.
7KDW QDUUDWLYH VSHFLDO LVVXH FRPHV DERXW ÀIWHHQ \HDUV DIWHU 6XUHVKCanagarajah (1996), then editor of TESOL Quarterly, pointed out that
UHVHDUFKHUV ZRUNLQJ ZLWKLQ LQWHUSUHWLYH ÀHOGV VKRXOG QRW IHHO UHVWULFWHG WR
SUHVHQWLQJ UHVHDUFK LQ D IRUPDW W\SLFDO RI  VFLHQWLÀF PHWKRGV DQG VKRXOG
consider creative ways of both doing and reporting research. This view was
supported by Holliday (2004) and Shohamy (2004) in responding to what they
considered restrictive TESOL Quarterly Submission Guidelines (Chapelle &24Taking a Narrative Turn, OnCUE Journal, 6(1), pages 23-36'XII   ,Q FDOOLQJ IRU JUHDWHU ÁH[LELOLW\ DQG OHVV SUHVFULSWLRQ 6KRKDP\(2004) observed that “in an era when research is opening up to a variety ofoptions, well beyond those included in the guidelines, such a prescription may
be perceived as an imposition or a dogma of how research should be done”(p. 728).
Similarly, my own article here represents a call for more submissions to andpublications in OCJ of genuinely interpretive TEFL/TESL research studies
that offer creative ways of doing and reporting research, given that in the last
few years the journal has offered primarily feature articles reporting research
XVLQJWKHWUDGLWLRQDOVFLHQWLÀFSDUDGLJPDWLFPHWKRGRORJLHV VHH$SSOH
Jones & Gardner, 2009; Kitzman, 2011; Kojima, 2010; Richardson, 2011;
Taferner, 2009; Winskowski, 2010; Winskowski & Duggan, 2011). Many ofthese employ questionnaire and survey formats with statistical inference,UHÁHFWLQJDEHOLHI LQK\SRWKHVLVWHVWLQJFDWHJRUL]DWLRQDQGWKHJHQHUDOL]DELOLW\of outcomes. Also, these articles are predictably structured around a typical
template with such headings as Introduction, Literature Review, Research
Questions, Method, Results, Summary and Discussion.
The predominance of this kind of positivistic research may, of course,
depend on various factors: for example, where teacher researchers have
GRQHWKHLUJUDGXDWHVWXGLHVDQGWRZKDWH[WHQWWKH\KDYHEHHQLQÁXHQFHGE\instructors who have leaned towards more traditional areas of TEFL/TESL
research, such as testing and vocabulary acquisition, which can be conveniently
measured. Furthermore, producing a questionnaire followed by a comparison
RI IDFWVDQGÀJXUHVDQGDQDQDO\VLVVRPHWLPHVOLPLWHGWRSHUFHQWDJHUHVSRQVHV
WR ÀYHSRLQW /LNHUW VFDOHV PD\ EH VHHQ DV D TXLFN URXWH WR SXEOLFDWLRQOne may therefore question whether at times working within the positivist
paradigm may be the result of pragmatic choice rather than determined by the
epistemological and ontological beliefs that should provide the philosophicalfoundations of undertaking such research.
Unfortunately, often when qualitative work is undertaken there appears
to be a long-held assumption that such research still requires generalizationof outcomes and categories for comparison. While the quantitative need to
25

Ford

generalize leads to research with large samples, questionnaires and statistics,
most qualitative studies seem to employ a small number of participants, usinga cross-case analysis and comparing participants’ experiences and beliefs
across common categories and themes. Any attention to particularity or
singularity is subordinated by the demand of answering pre-emptive researchquestions under theme-oriented headings. With such an approach the languageof generalizations used in large sample studies is replaced by that of cross-casecommonalitiesDPRQJDIHZSDUWLFLSDQWV$VDUHVXOWWKHVLJQLÀFDQWH[SHULHQFHVand perspectives of unique individuals still may well be passed over as they do
QRWÀWLQWRWKHFRQYHQLHQFHRI FURVVFDVHFDWHJRUL]DWLRQ$V3HVKNLQ  puts it, “Some qualitative researchers generalize timidly, possibly having cut
their methodological teeth on the positivist’s biscuit” (p. 25), resulting from abelief that they need to express the reliability, validity, and generalizability of
research outcomes.
Single-participant narrative inquiry in TEFL/TESL is rare, and it
undoubtedly involves various challenges. It often requires an extended
commitment of one individual’s time and participation throughout the
research process, a period of often lengthy and cyclical interviewing and datacollection, detailed transcription of extensive narrative data, detailed analyticalengagement on the part of the researcher, and considerable researcher/participant collaboration throughout the writing up of the research, with thegoal being “to allow us to tell and analyze a fascinating and illuminating story”(Bell, 2011, p. 580). This kind of research is experience-centered and takes
a holistic, content-oriented approach, usually looking at extensive narratives
or teaching life stories, and as such, points to the “experiential richness andUHÁHFWLYHQHVVµ 3KRHQL[S LQYROYHGE\WDNLQJLQWRDFFRXQWWKHELJ
picture (see Bamberg, 2004, 2006, for the small and big stories distinction). The
autobiographical content of big stories becomes the unit of analysis, and as the
OLIHVWRULHVZHWHOOPD\WHQGWRGHÀQHDFRKHUHQWVHQVHRI VHOI ERWKDWDSHUVRQDOOHYHODQGIRURWKHUVDQGDUHDUHÁHFWLRQRI RXUDWWLWXGHVEHOLHIVEHKDYLRUDQG
values, various writers have come to describe them metaphorically as the stories
we live by (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Heilbrun, 1988; McAdams, 1993).
26

Taking a Narrative Turn, OnCUE Journal, 6(1), pages 23-36

Taking a narrative research stance, of course, makes some fundamental
SKLORVRSKLFDODVVXPSWLRQVDERXWNQRZOHGJHDQGUHDOLW\ZKLFKSODFHLWÀUPO\
within the interpretive mode of research. Its epistemological stance strongly
rejects the objectivism inherent in the positivist paradigm in favor of viewing
human knowledge and meaning as being personally and socially constructed.
Often termed as constructionism (Crotty, 1998; Pring, 2000), this viewpoint sees
knowledge as “dependent on the knower and his/her context” (Ernest, 1994,
p. 36), and is supported by a relativist view of ontology that recognises multiple
realities and rejects the notion of absolute truths.
Furthermore, as single-participant narrative research often focuses on
WKHFRQÁLFWLQJFRQWUDGLFWRU\DQGIUDJPHQWDU\DVSHFWVRI KXPDQLGHQWLW\DQG
experience, researchers often draw on Foucauldian postmodernist thinking
for its philosophical foundations. Highlighting themes of complexity anddifference, leading to an acceptance of multiplicity and unresolved tensions,both in personal and professional life, represents a viewpoint that rejects
FRQYHQLHQW FDWHJRUL]DWLRQ DQG FODVVLÀFDWLRQ IXOO\ HPEUDFHV VXEMHFWLYLW\ DQGfrees us from “the dilemma of being either for or against” (Foucault, 1988, p.
 )RUPDQ\UHVHDUFKHUVEHLQJRSHQWRFRQÁLFWDQGFRQWUDGLFWLRQLVVHHQ
as both principle and rationale behind the undertaking of such research, inthat it can result in being able “to see different and sometimes contradictory
layers of meaning, to bring them into useful dialogue with each other” (Squire,
Andrews, & Tamboukou, 2008, p. 1).
As we begin to analyze life stories, we are faced with the question of
how information is revealed. With extensive narrative data the process ofanalysis can seem an overwhelming undertaking, being “susceptible to endlessinterpretation, by turns inconsequential and deeply meaningful” (Squire etal., 2008, p. 1). Riessman (2008) emphasizes the need for the kind of “close
reading” (p. 153) of the literary scholar, the kind of attention to detail thatmight elicit irony, ambiguity, foretelling, symbol and metaphor, like signs andsignposting inserted by the narrator, either at a conscious or subconscious levelas a means of aiding our interpretation. Researchers also attend to recurrent
themes or motifs, which may be embedded in different episodes (Phoenix,
27

Ford

2008).
Pointing to its dual nature, Toolan (2001) notes that when reading anarrative “part of the experience is the activity of ‘reading’ or scrutinizing thecharacter of the teller” (p. 1) as well as attending to the events or the story itself.
Narrators may well embed their own ideological perspectives and interests
into their personal life stories (Langellier, 1989). Consequently, with narrative
analysis, as Josselson (2004) observes, “the epistemological praxis relies onhermeneutics, a disciplined form of moving from text to meaning” (p. 3). For
Ricoeur (1981) this interpretive process involves taking either a restoration or
GHP\VWLÀFDWLRQDSSURDFK7KHÀUVWRI WKHVHUHVWRUDWLRQFDQDOVREHGHVFULEHG
as a hermeneutics of faith in that the researcher’s role is one of “distilling,elucidating, and illuminating the intended meanings of the informant”-RVVHOVRQ  S   &RQYHUVHO\ WKH GHP\VWLÀFDWLRQ DSSURDFK FDQ DOVR
be seen as a hermeneutics of suspicion, whereby the researcher’s attention is
focused on “the omissions, disjunctions, inconsistencies, and contradictionsin an account” (Josselson, 2004, pp. 14-15). Furthermore, Bruner (1987) has
SRLQWHG RXW WKDW WKH SHUVRQDO DQG UHÁH[LYH QDWXUH RI  QDUUDWLYH LQHYLWDEO\creates certain dilemmas, not least “the autobiographical narrator’s irresistible
error in accounting for his acts in terms of intentions when, in fact, they might
have been quite otherwise determined” (p. 13).
Given such analytical considerations in undertaking interpretive researchwhich focuses on a single participant narrative and on the particularity anduniqueness of one individual’s teaching life experiences, the question arises ofwhat valuative criteria may be used that allow researchers to demonstrate thequality of knowledge outcomes and a rigorous research process. In rejecting
reliability and validity as inappropriate standards for evaluating life story
outcomes, Atkinson (1998) emphasizes that “historical truth is not the main
issue in narrative; telling a story implies a certain, and maybe, unique point ofview” (p.60). In addressing the question “How are we to evaluate a narrative
analysis?” Riessman (1993, pp. 64-68) points to reconceptualizing validity
and offers four criteria for the validation of narrative research, focusing on
trustworthinessUDWKHUWKDQVFLHQWLÀFtruth7KHÀUVWRI WKHVHFULWHULDpersuasiveness,
28

Taking a Narrative Turn, OnCUE Journal, 6(1), pages 23-36

requires that readers should be able to assess whether both the story told andthe interpretations given, by participant and researcher, seem reasonable andconvincing. Gergen (1985) suggests that whether readers are convinced of
the value of a narrative analysis depends on the “analyst’s capacity to invite,
compel, stimulate, or delight the audience” (p. 272). Furthermore, as Riessman(1993) notes, it is the researcher’s writing practices and style in communicating
effectively and rigorously that will ultimately determine whether readers are
SHUVXDGHG RI  WKH VLJQLÀFDQFH RI  WKH SDUWLFLSDQW·V H[SHULHQFHV DQG RI  WKH
researcher’s interpretations.
Keeping in mind that the narrator/participant is offering what they consider
to be “a truthful and thorough representation” (Atkinson, 1998, p. 59), thenthat person should be given the opportunity to comment on the researcher’s
representations and interpretations of their life story. Riessman’s (1993) second
criterion of correspondence, also referred to as corroboration (Atkinson, 1998) and
respondent validation (Measor & Sikes, 1992), involves checking back with the
QDUUDWRUWRYHULI\WKHLUVWRU\LWVHYHQWVLWVVLJQLÀFDQFHDQGLWVLQWHUSUHWDWLRQVProviding the narrator/participant with complete and accurate transcripts,
examples of report writing in progress for approval, as well as getting them toUHÁHFWRQWKHUHVHDUFKHU·VDQDO\VLVRI WKHLUH[SHULHQFHVZLOODOOLQHYLWDEO\DLGthe corroboration and collaborative process. While involving the participant in
WKLVZD\KDVVLJQLÀFDQFHIRUGHWHUPLQLQJWKHTXDOLW\RI NQRZOHGJHRXWFRPHV
it also meets research requirements in terms of paying attention to ethicalconsiderations. Furthermore, a participant’s responses during this process
can further generate data, widen the analysis, and provide further insights andunderstandings.
There is also the question of a narrative demonstrating an internalconsistency (Atkinson, 1998), or the criterion that Riessman (1993) terms
themal coherence. This means that the narrative, the story told, makes sense, that
LWLVORJLFDODQGWKDWLWUHÁHFWVWKHSDUWLFLSDQW·VLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRI KRZ´WKHSDVWthe experienced present and the anticipated future is presently understood bythat person” (Atkinson, 1998, p. 60), and whereby there are “recurrent themesthat unify the text” (Riessman, 1993, p. 67). As we seek to make meaning of
29

Ford

RXUOLYHVE\ÀQGLQJFRQQHFWLRQVRUUHODWLQJSDVWH[SHULHQFHVWRWKHSUHVHQWDQG
IXWXUH WKH VWRULHV ZH WHOO VKRXOG DOVR UHÁHFW WKLV LQWHUFRQQHFWHGQHVV 7KRVHUHVHDUFKHUVKRZHYHUZKRDUHLQWHUHVWHGLQDWWHQGLQJWRSHUVRQDOFRQÁLFWDQG
contradiction in identity studies may, of course, question the applicability ofthis criterion.
Finally, as an aspect of transparency, another essential criterion ofsetting valuative standards for life story research is pragmatic use (Riessman,1993). That is, as much as is practically possible within research writing
limitations, narrative researchers should try to make their research processes,
purposes and agendas as visible as possible to the reader. This will involve
giving whatever information seems appropriate in assisting the reader toassess the trustworthiness of a study, including how interpretations of thedata are reached, and even making primary data available. For example, theresearcher can make it clear that full transcripts are available for access byreaders if requested. Quinlan (1996) points to other important aspects ofproviding transparency, such as the researcher making explicit the nature of
the researcher/participant relationship, as well as the stories the researcher isliving at the time of writing up the study.
7KLV FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI  YDOXDWLYH FULWHULD QDWXUDOO\ OHDGV WR UHÁHFWLQJ RQ
the nature of potential research outcomes and contributions to knowledgeof single participant narrative research. As such, the questions that arise are“Does meaning making become knowledge? What counts as knowledge?”(Barkhuizen, 2011, p. 395). Clearly, in single-participant narrative analyticalresearch, which embraces the particularity and uniqueness of an individual’steaching journey and the researcher’s subjective positioning, knowledge
FODLPVZLOOEHVLJQLÀFDQWO\GLIIHUHQWWRWKRVHIRXQGHGRQWKHPRUHWUDGLWLRQDO
generalizations of positivistic research or even the cross-case commonalitiesof other approaches. Narrative research entails a “search for a different kindof knowledge, knowledge which empowers rather than making possible
SUHGLFWLRQDQGFRQWUROµ (OED]/XZLVFKS UHÁHFWHGLQDQDUUDWRU·V
“opportunity for professional self-enhancement” (Measor & Sikes, 1992,
p. 217), and in assisting teachers to become “more aware of, and thus30

Taking a Narrative Turn, OnCUE Journal, 6(1), pages 23-36

understanding better, themselves and their practices” (Barkhuizen, 2011, p.
394).
As a teacher engages with a narrative of their teaching life experiences,
articulating their rationale and principles, they can produce a depth and
FRPSOH[LW\ RI  WHDFKHU WKLQNLQJ DQG VHOIUHÁHFWLRQ ,Q IROORZLQJ 'HZH\(1933), Johnson and Golombek (2002) have observed that to have educative
experiences teachers need to engage in a mind-set of open-mindedness,
responsibility, and wholeheartedness. They suggest that when teachersinquire into their experiences with this set of attitudes, which means seeking
alternatives, recognizing consequences, and continual self-examination, “theyindividually and collectively question their own assumptions as they uncover
who they are, where they have come from, what they know and believe, and why
they teach as they do” (p. 5). This engagement provides the UHÁHFWLYHSUDFWLWLRQHU
with the opportunity to piece together, consciously or subconsciously,
VLJQLÀFDQWWHDFKLQJOLIHHSLVRGHVLQWRDPHDQLQJIXODQGFRKHUHQWQDUUDWLYHRI 
their professional development, which is in itself a process of professional
development (Gill & Pryor, 2006), and something that Barkhuizen (2011)
would include as narrative knowledging.
While narrators engage in the process of narrative knowledging in
relating their stories, narrative researchers engage in the systematic analysisof the insights and assumptions illustrated and embedded in the narration.
In this process, the researcher’s role is to bring out the participant’s story toengender fuller self-understanding, and through presentation of the story
and its interpretation, making a contribution to increased knowledge ofunderstanding teacher experience. As Riessman (2008) points out, “no story
speaks for itself but instead requires interrogation and contextualization” (p.
154). Also, as researchers undertake such a role, “there are times when we
may react from a very personal place, maybe because what the person has saidconnects deeply with part of our own experience” (Atkinson, 1998, p. 65),or as Wolfe (1985) observes, “a singular story, as every true story is singular,
will in the magic way of some things apply, connect, resonate, touch a magic
chord” (p. 72).
31

Ford

In this article I have suggested that OCJ needs to present a more balanced
UHSUHVHQWDWLRQRI ZD\VRI GRLQJDQGUHSRUWLQJUHVHDUFKLQWKHÀHOGRI 7()/
7(6/UDQJLQJIURPWKHWUDGLWLRQDOVFLHQWLÀFDSSURDFKHVJXLGHGE\SRVLWLYLVW
values (which appears to have become so predominant in the journal recently)
to the more radical interpretive approaches which value subjectivity and human
complexity, such as single-participant narrative research that I have outlined
here. In doing so, I hope that I may be encouraging budding researchers toconsider taking a narrative turn and exploring the challenges, possibilities, andpotential outcomes that can emerge in the exploration and insights into one
individual’s personal teaching journey.
Keith Ford KDVEHHQWHDFKLQJDWYDULRXVXQLYHUVLWLHVLQ7RN\RIRUWKHSDVWÀIWHHQWHDUV+LV
academic and research interests include narrative inquiry, stylistics, and the development of
L2 writing skills. Since 2001 he has been the editor of the Opinion and Perspective columnof OnCUE/OnCUE Journal. fordkeith@hotmail.com
Received: May 11, 2012
Accepted: June 3, 2012

References$SSOH0  $XWRQRP\DVDSUHGLFWRURI (QJOLVKSURÀFLHQF\OnCUE
Journal, 4, 191-216.
Atkinson, R. (1998). The life story interview. (Sage University Papers Series on
Qualitative Research Methods, Vol. 44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bamberg, M. (2004). Talk, small stories, and adolescent identities. Human
Development, 47, 366-369.
Bamberg, M. (2006). Stories: Big or small. Why do we care? Narrative Inquiry,
16(1), 139-147.
Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly,
45, 391-414.
Bell, J. S. (2011). Reporting and publishing narrative inquiry in TESOL:32

Taking a Narrative Turn, OnCUE Journal, 6(1), pages 23-36

Challenges and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 575-584.
Bruner, J. (1987). Life as narrative. Social Research, 54(1), 11-32.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1996). From research practice to critical research
reporting. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 321-330.
Chapelle, C. A., & Duff, P. A. (Eds.). (2003). Some guidelines for conducting
quantitative and qualitative research in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 37,
157-178.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story
in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrativeinquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-14.
Cortazzi, M. (1993). Narrative analysis. London: Falmer Press.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. London: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago: Henry Regnery.
Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (1997). Narrative research: Political issues andimplications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 75-83.
Ernest, P. (1994). An introduction to research methodology and paradigms.
[Educational research monograph series; 1] Exeter: Research Support
Unit, School of Education: University of Exeter.
Foucault, M. (1988). Politics, philosophy, and culture: Interviews and other writings,
1997-1984. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern
psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266-275.
Gill, S., & Pryor, J. (2006). The person who teaches? Narrative identity andteachers’ experience at an international conference. Forum, 48(3), 285296.
Goodson, I., & Sikes, P. (2001). Life history research in educational settings:
Learning from lives. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Heilbrun, C. G. (1988). Writing a woman’s life. New York, NY: Norton.
Holliday, A. (2004). Issues of validity in progressive paradigms of qualitative
research. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 731-734.
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2002). Inquiry into experience: Teachers’
33

Ford

personal and professional growth. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golombek(Eds.), Teachers’ narrative inquiry as professional development (pp. 1-14).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2011). The transformative power ofnarrative in second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 45,486-509.
Jones, B., & Gardner, M. (2009). Language learning beliefs in Asia: A closer
look at the BALLI. OnCUE Journal, 3, 202-219.
Josselson, R. (2004). The hermeneutics of faith and the hermeneutics ofsuspicion. Narrative Inquiry, 14(1), 1-28.
Kitzman, A. (2011). Needs analyses in the Japanese EFL classroom: A studyof teacher content control. OnCUE Journal, 5, 3-23.
Kojima, H. (2010). Developing initial EFL teacher’s autonomy: The case of
the CARLA program. OnCUE Journal, 4, 43-59.
Langellier, K. M. (1989). Personal narratives: Perspectives on theory andresearch. Text and Performance Quarterly, 9(4), 243-276.
McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of theself. New York: Guilford Press.
Measor, L., & Sikes, P. (1992). Visiting lives: Ethics and methodology inlife history. In I. F. Goodson (Ed.), Studying teachers’ lives (pp. 209-233).
London: Routledge.
Munro, P. (1998). 6XEMHFWWRÀFWLRQ:RPHQWHDFKHUV·OLIHKLVWRU\QDUUDWLYHVDQGWKH
cultural politics of resistance. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational
Researcher, 22(2), 23-29.
Phoenix, A. (2008). Analysing narrative texts. In M. Andrews, C. Squire, & M.
Tamboukou (Eds.), Doing narrative research (pp. 64-77). London: Sage.
Pring, R. (2000). Philosophy of educational research. London: Continuum.
Quinlan, D. (1996). 7RZDUGVWKHUHFRQVWUXFWLRQRI DFOLQLFDOSV\FKRORJLVWDQGDUHÁH[LYH
body of practice. Unpublished Ph. D. University of Bath. Retrieved April
22, 2009, fromwww.bath.ac.uk/carpp/publications/doc_theses_links/pdf/dt_dq_chapter2.
34

Taking a Narrative Turn, OnCUE Journal, 6(1), pages 23-36

pdf
Richardson, R. (2011). Comparing student and teacher views on effective language
teaching. OnCUE Journal, 4, 243-262.
Ricoeur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the human sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. London: Sage.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Concluding comments. In M. Andrews, C. Squire,& M. Tamboukou (Eds.), Doing narrative research (pp. 151-156). London:
Sage.
Schon, D. A. (1983). 7KHUHÁHFWLYHSUDFWLWLRQHU+RZSURIHVVLRQDOVWKLQNLQDFWLRQ.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
6KRKDP\(  5HÁHFWLRQVRQUHVHDUFKJXLGHOLQHVFDWHJRULHVDQG
responsibilities. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 728-731.
Squire, C., Andrews, M., & Tamboukou, M. (2008). What is narrative
research? In M. Andrews, C. Squire, & M. Tamboukou (Eds.), Doingnarrative research (pp. 1-21). London: Sage.
Taferner, R. H. (2009). Study skills and strategies within the academic EFL
context in Japan. OnCUE Journal, 3, 220-247.
Toolan, M. (2001). (2nd ed.). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2007). Complexities of identity formation: A narrative inquiryof an EFL teacher. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 657-680.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychologicalprocesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Winskowski, C. (2010). How students rate: A pilot think-aloud study ofstudents’ course evaluation responses. OnCUE Journal, 4, 3-42.
Winskowski, C., & Duggan, S. (2011). How students rate, Part 2: Pilot
assessment of relevance of student reasoning in course ratings. OnCUE
Journal, 4, 217-242.
Wolfe, G. (1985). Minor lives. In M. Pachter (Ed.), Telling lives: The biographer’sart (pp. 56-73). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
35

Ford

Xu, Y., & Liu, Y. (2009). Teacher assessment knowledge and practice: A
narrative inquiry of a Chinese college EFL teacher’s experience. TESOL
Quarterly, 43, 657-680.

Assistant Editor Needed
Putting out just one issue of OnCUE Journal is a massive undertaking intime and energy, but we are obligated to do three issues per year. As chief editor,
I could use some help. Would you like to become an assistant editor?

Responsibilities to share with me: Coordinating submissions for feature articles between authors andreviewers.
Scheduling proofreading of completed articles in all sections of OCJ.
*VSSHIVYH[PUN ^P[O SH`V\[ THUHNLY [V LUZ\YL MVYTH[[PUN HUK ÄUHS
editing.
Updating the publishing timeline throughout the year.
Soliciting proofreaders and reviewers.
Improving the CUE homepage section on OCJ as needed.




 Creating documents such as guidelines in the publishing process.
4XDOLÀFDWLRQV

This person needs to be extremely organized and time-conscious.
Experience in editing a journal is necessary, and strong proofreading or layoutskills are highly recommended. Knowledge of APA formatting is essential.
Personal (social) communication skills are a must to deal with sensitive messages
to authors, associate editors, and others.
The time needed to work on each issue varies, and although it is an ongoingprocess to publish each issue, there will be times that are far busier than others.
Ultimately, this person may even be asked to take over the role as chief editor
or section editor when a vacancy arises.
Willing to take a strong role in CUE? This is it. I’m not going to assign
any deadline for inquiries. Send details about yourself related to the above
requirements, along with a brief description of your academic background andresearch interests.
Glen Hill
Chief Editor, OnCUE Journal
glenahill@gmail.com

36