Kathleen Wells, Narrative Inquiry. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. 162 pp. ISBN: 9780195385793 (pbk).

Kathleen Wells Narrative Inquiry begins with the following puzzle: why is narrative inquiry more prominent in forms of social work practice than in social work research? (Reissman and Quinney, 2005; Reissman and Speedy, 2007; Wells, 2011). As social workers, we trade in stories. Whether we are researchers , clinicians, or both, it is narratives that form our greatest currency. Unlike th e surgeons scalpel, or the accountants calculator, narratives are not only tools; they act as both our starting point and our end product. In a clinicians office, the therapeutic process begins with the telling of a story (e.g. why the patient cam e, what the patient hopes to gain from treatment) and a successful therapeutic experience ends with a patient reporting a new, better, or different Book Reviews g 539 Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PENNSYLVANIA on December 22, 2011 understanding (read: narrative) of herself that has allowed change to take place . Whether its talk, cognitive-behavioral, or narrative therapy, these principles broadly apply. Similarly, qualitative and quantitative researchers begin with a question (e.g. how have societal views of youth and childhood changed?) and use different evidence to construct a coherent narrative to answer it (Nybell, Shook and Finn, 2009). However, narrative analysis as a method has been less widely used than quantitative methods such as multivariate analysis or qualitative methods based in grounded theory. For a profession so steeped in stories, how has this juxtaposition come to be? Wells purpose is not to answer this question, but by posing it at the beginning of her text, she implicitly enters a ninety-six-yearold conversation about what doing good social work means and what the scientific basis for social work is. This conversation exploded with Abraham Flexners 1915 pronouncement that social work did not constitute a profession because of its broad character, lack of scientific knowledge base, and absence of a consistent educational framework (Flexner, 1915; McGrath Morris, 2008). At the center of Flexners qualms is the idea that narrative inquiry and construction is too nebulous and not scientifically rigorous enough to count as professional work. Flexner fanned the flame of an already emerging debate over what makes evidence, evidence, and what makes analysis, rigorous one that continues to this day as we contend with the tension between broad and narrow definitions of science and research, while fighting for professional standing and recognition. In this context, it is not a mystery why narrative methodologies are not more prominent as tools for investigation among social work researchers in general, and qualitative researchers, in particular, as they can be perceived to be more humanistic than scientific (Wells, 2011). Wells task in Narrative Inquiry is quite simple: to suggest that narrative analysis is an important research method that is particularly appropriate for social work researchers. Wells talent here is that she makes a strong case for the rigor of narrative methods, not by entering larger epistemological debates, but by clearly elucidating distinct types of narrative analysis and how one might perform them. In this way, Wells shows us, rather than tells us, why narrative analysis should be a more prominent method utilized in the field. Part of the Oxford Pocket Guide to Social Work Research Methods series, this book is intended to be an introductory handbook for researchers and graduate students which encourages the use of narrative analysis in research projects. Apart from its primary audience, this book is also an important read for qualitative social work researchers who are not

currently using narrative analysis in their work. Wells succinct overview of 540 g Qualitative Social Work 10(4) Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PENNSYLVANIA on December 22, 2011 narrative methods explicitly considers what kind of research and questions might benefit from this approach: Within the substantive areas of concern to social work, narrative inquiry may be used to understand by way of illustration, the nature of professional-client encounters; the tacit dimensions of practice; and the categories of service such as foster care that tend to be reified in much research. Narrative inquiry may a lso be used to study aspects of development that may be otherwise overlooked; the relational experiences at the heart of clinical social work (Josselson, Lieblich , and McAdams, 2003; Mitchell, 2007); and the ways in which individuals negotiate social exclusion (Rustin and Chamberlayne, 2002). (Wells, 2011: 12) Since narratives link the varied forms of social work practice, narrative analysis is a tool able to address concerns of particular relevance to social wo rk. The theoretical basis for narrative inquiry (which includes narrative analysis, content analysis, and discourse analysis) rests on the assumption that language serves as the building-block for stories (which Wells uses interchangeably with narratives). Analysis of the language of narratives allows us to make sense of stories as something in and of themselves instead of using them as a way to understand phenomena. Wells succinctly defines the difference: Researchers [often] look through language rather than at language (Wells, 2011: 3). By looking at language directly, researchers are offered new possibilities for unde rstanding not only the meanings that result from particular sets of experience but the task of meaning-making itself, which in turn helps us to understand the phenomenon under investigation. Narrative analysis takes stories as its primary source of data and examines the content, structure, performance, or context of such narratives considered as a whole (Wells, 2011: 7). Narrative analysis relies on extended accounts of experien ce, which form the unit of analysis (Reissman, 2008; Wells, 2011: 7). Using extended accounts of experience as the unit of analysis leaves a wide range of subject matter open to investigation but particularly privileges the first perso n account (past, present, future) and/or the co-constructed narrative between researcher and reporter. The difference between narrative analysis and content analysis primarily rests on the fact that narrative analysis considers the const ruction of the narrative itself as the central focus of the research rather than the num ber or type of themes present in a particular study. Thinking about how and why a story is formulated, what this formulation achieves, and how the formulation influence s its reception, makes narrative analysis useful for considering context specific questions (Wells: 2011). One of the strengths of narrative analysis is its ability to close[ly] examin[ e] how narratives are suppressed, collected, and sustained; co-constructed and controlled; and affected by the institutional and other discursive contexts of which they are a part; all in the service of deepening our understanding of Book Reviews g 541 Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PENNSYLVANIA on December 22, 2011 the research question at hand; whether it is how therapists create boundaries with their clients or parole officers make decisions about which sanctions to

impose for those on their case load (Wells, 2011: 37). At heart, narrative analy sis rests on the assumption that narratives themselves require an interpretative act . The report, the narrative, the story, is a socially produced account that should not stand alone as social fact. By emphasizing the way narratives are produced, narrative analysis is a particularly strong tool for unpacking the experience of populations that are often silenced in research such as runaway youths, drag kings and queens, and HIV infected children. Indeed, silence itself, where it occurs within a narrativ e, or within research is a primary concern of the epistemology from which narrative analysis as a method descends. Social work researchers whose work focuses on marginalized populations can find an explicit tool for addressing power dynamics within the research process in narrative analysis. Narrative Inquiry is organized by the phases of the research process. It begins with an introduction to epistemological and methodological foundations of the narrative turn in the social sciences, humanities, and psychology; moves toward a discussion of the case study as an organizing framework for narrative analysis; and then, in Chapters Three, Four, and Five, takes on distinct strateg ies for the collection of narrative data and its analysis (apart from and including the case study). Wells then delineates how strategies used in discursive analysis an d content analysis could be deployed within the narrative analytic framework. The book ends with a chapter on the validation and rigor of research based on these methods and offers a guide to essential elements of a research proposal construc ted around narrative analysis. Given the continued contentious debate over what constitutes scientific research, I have chosen to highlight Wells case for the rigor of narrative analysi s as a method in this review. In each chapter, Wells details the salient factors t hat separate a strong narrative analysis from a weak one. Within each section, Wells takes care to place central methodological issues at the forefront of discussion and organizes each phase of research around the series of methodological choices tha t a researcher makes at each moment in the research process. For example, in her chapter on narrative analysis within the case study, Wells begins with a discuss ion of comparative vs. single-type case studies and describes the benefits and drawb acks for each approach. She then elucidates multiple perspectives on the purpose, defining features, and significance of case studies. Moving from the general to the particular, Wells highlights the specific set of decisions a researcher m ust make when using narrative analysis within a case study. Wells describes selectio n of the sample as occurring within the logic of purposeful sampling rather than within the logic of probability sampling. The logic of purposeful sampling, creates a criterion based on the aim of the study rather than on principles of randomness and generalizability. Participants are selected precisely because the y 542 g Qualitative Social Work 10(4) Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PENNSYLVANIA on December 22, 2011 can provide an in-depth perspective rather than for their diversity. After decid ing

who or what to sample, questions of the number of narratives or participants must be considered. Wells does not assert that there is a magic number one must use when selecting participants. Instead, she demonstrates how an N of one may be appropriate for a narrative analysis whose purpose is to exemplify theoretical concepts, while a case study whose purpose is to refine concepts may require many more (Wells, 2011: 20). It is these kinds of conversations that make Narrative Inquiry a unique methods text. Instead of providing a doctrine for narrative analysis, Wells emphasizes that each step of narrative analysis is not prescribed but encompasse s a constellation of choices. Such a constellation of choices allows a researcher the freedom to construct their analysis in the most appropriate way for the project at hand without losing the rigor of a clearly defined research method. Wells continues to connect rigor and validity in her sections on the collection of data and the analysis of data. Displaying the diversity of approac hes within narrative analysis, Wells considers each approach within the context of the questions being considered and emphasizes that there must always be a clear link between the questions one asks and the questions one might ask and the concepts and strategies one might employ in order to understand how narratives are co-constructed, performed, and shaped by the sites in which they are produce d (Wells, 2011: 23). One of the central issues here is not just the link between the research question and the method but the link between the research question and the interviewers stance toward the research subject, the process of the interview itself, and the re-presentation of the data (Riessman and Quinney, 2005; Wells, 2011). Does a researcher studying narratives believe that the interview process is one of co-construction between subject and interviewer or does the interviewer believe that the narrative reported is independent of the interviewers influence? The stance of the researcher then determines the framing of the questions in the interview, which then influences the collection of the data, which then influenc es the transcription of the data, which then influences the analysis of the data itself. In this way, each choice in a narrative analysis is presented as a decis ion tree, with the internal coherence between each methodological decision and the original question creating the barometer for whether a particular analysis has a high level of internal validity. Wells thinks of external validity within a framework of trustworthiness, which is described as a much broader concept than validity. Utilizing Hammersleys model; Wells positions trustworthiness in relational terms, e.g. how representative is the narrative of what it intends to describe; how relevant is it to the field; how reflexive has the researcher been in theorizing her own rol e in shaping the narrative (Hammersley, 1992; Wells, 2011). This chapter would benefit from a clearer definition of how these pieces come together to form a Book Reviews g 543 Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PENNSYLVANIA on December 22, 2011 trustworthy account. Further, the introduction of trustworthiness as the foundatio n for validity raises questions about the audience that Wells has so carefully attended to in other portions of the book. Does trustworthiness come to mean the researcher himself? Or independent narratives? Does it mean replication or reliability? By trying to extend the concept of validity, trustworthiness as a f rame

begins to blur the point by redirecting our focus to what is real, rather than what is interpreted. Given that the interpretative act is the heart of narrative analysis, this blurring is an unfortunate confusion of the message that Wells ha d so beautifully communicated in every other chapter: that narrative analysis is a scientific and rigorous method. However, in the end, this is a small quibble wit h a work that deftly accomplishes so many distinct tasks: to give an overview of t he method, to unpack distinct forms of narrative analysis, to define rigor within each step of the research process, and to articulate why narrative analysis is a n important method for social work researchers to utilize. It is this last point that deserves our attention as qualitative researchers. If narratives are the link between the varied forms of social work and are at the heart of our work as a profession, should narrative analysis occupy a more privileged place within the methods of our inquiry? Emily Adlin Bosk University of Michigan, USA bosk@umich.edu References Flexner, A (1915) Is Social Work a Profession?, pp. 576-90 in Proceedings of the N ational Conference of Charities and Correction at the Forty-second Annual Session held i n Baltimore, Maryland, May 1219, 1915. Chicago: Hildmann. Hammersley, M (1992) Whats Wrong with Ethnography? Methodological Explorations. London & New York: Routledge. Josselson, R, Lieblich, A and McAdams, D. P (eds) (2003) Up Close and Personal: The Teaching and Learning of Narrative Research. Washington, DC: American Psychologi cal Association. McGrath Morris, P (2008) Reinterpreting Abraham Flexners Speech, Is Social Work a Profession?: Its Meaning and Influence on the Fields Early Professional Development, Social Service Review 82(1), doi: 10.1086/529399. Mitchell, V (2007) Earning a Secure Attachment Style: A Narrative of Personality Change, in Josselson R, Lieblich A and McAdams D (eds) The Meaning of Others: Narrative Studies of Relationships. pp. 93116, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Nybell, L, Shook, J and Finn, J (eds) (2009) Childhood, Youth, and Social Work i n Transformation: Implications for Policy and Practice. New York: Columbia Univers ity Press. Reissman, C (2008) Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 544 g Qualitative Social Work 10(4) Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PENNSYLVANIA on December 22, 2011