How Did I Get to Princess Margaret? (And How Did I Get Her to the World Wide Web?)

The paper explores the growing use of tools from the arts and humanities for investigation and dissemination of social science research. Emerging spaces for knowledge transfer, such as the World Wide Web, are explored as outlets for "performative social science". Questions of ethnics and questions of evaluation which emerge from performative social science and the use of new technologies are discussed. Contemporary thinking in aesthetics is explored to answer questions of evaluation. The use of the Internet for productions is proposed as supporting the collective elaboration of meaning supported by Relational Aesthetics. One solution to the ethical problem of performing the narrations of others is the use of the writer's own story as autoethnography. The author queries autoethnography's tendency to tell "sad" stories and proposes an amusing story, exemplified by "The One about Princess Margaret" (see Appendix). The conclusion is reached that the free and open environment of the Internet sidelines the usual tediousness of academic publishing and begins to explore new answers to questions posed about the evaluation and ethics of performative social science

Connecting Research with Communities through Performative Social Science

A pioneer in Performative Social Science, Kip Jones makes a case for the potential of arts-based social science to reach audiences and engage communities. Jones contextualises both the use of the arts in Social Science, as well as the utility of Social Science in the Arts and Humanities. The discussion turns next to examples from his own work and what happens when Art talks to Social Science and Social Science responds to Art. The benefits of such interaction and interdisciplinarity are outlined in relation to a recently completed project using multi-methods, which resulted in the production of a professional short film. In conclusion, Performative Social Science is redefined in terms of synthesis that can break down old boundaries, open up channels of communication and empower communities through engagement

Infusing biography with the personal: writing Rufus Stone

Purpose A recent four-year research project entitled, “Gay and Pleasant Land?—a study about positioning, ageing and gay life in rural South West England and Wales” took place as part of the Research Councils UK funded New Dynamics of Ageing Programme on ageing in 21st Century Britain. The key output of this effort was the short professionally made, award winning film, Rufus Stone. This article unpacks the evolution of creating the film script, with a particular emphasis on the author’s relationship with the biographies, the filmmaking process and, indeed, his own story. Approach Through first person narrative and textural bricolage, the author recounts the processes that went into writing the background, treatment and working script for the film. This included sifting through copious data, story meetings, writing back story and collaboration with the film’s director. In the final analysis, the author was dependent on auto-ethnography to bring the biographies of others to the screen. Findings Arts-based collaborative efforts require versatility and experimentation in approaches and a willingness to communicate across disciplines. Knowing when to ‘let go’ in partnerships is key to this process. Originality/value The article responds to many of the issues, concerns and questions that have arisen at academic screenings of the film. It provides a valuable starting point for others interested in experimenting with arts-based dissemination of research findings. The originality of the use of auto-ethnography itself to report on this process is consistent with the principles of Performative Social Science, on which the project’s dissemination is based

Editorial Note: The book review as "performance"

The growth of the Internet presents challenges to knowledge transfer; such knowledge is formed contextually and dialogically, a negotiated discursive construct that is created between people. The editorial makes a case for book reviews and review essays which are auto-ethnographic, "performative" and critical. The shift to a more dialogic exploration of emergent knowledge through the book review as social discourse is discussed. The essence of qualitative research itself is explored as the bedrock of book reviews. Reviews are considered as polyvocal attempts at interfacing with cultural/relational/linguistic accounts of the real. A narrative approach to reporting on reviewed books is encouraged, permitting authors to reveal themselves in the relationships presented through their writing. A case is made that a phenomenological approach to writing reviews would be more interested in the person who writes than in the act of writing itself. It is through the creative representations of the reviewed book that reviewers can fashion their own individual Gestalt or worldview woven from the writing under review. The report itself mediates between researcher/writer and reviewer/reader. Such an approach opens up opportunities to write book reviews "performatively". Finally, reviewers are encouraged to create both a dialogue with the author under consideration as well as with their reader

Mission drift in qualitative research, or moving toward a systematic review of qualitative studies, moving back to a more systematic narrative review

The paper argues that the systematic review of qualitative research is best served by reliance upon qualitative methods themselves. A case is made for strengthening the narrative literature review and using narrative itself as a method of review. A technique is proposed that builds upon recent developments in qualitative systematic review by the use of a narrative inductive method of analysis. The essence of qualitative work is described. The natural ability for issues of ethnicity and diversity to be investigated through a qualitative approach is elaborated. Recent developments in systematic review are delineated, including the Delphi and Signal and Noise techniques, inclusion of grey literature, scoping studies and meta-ethnography. A narrative inductive interpretive method to review qualitative research is proposed, using reflective teams to analyse documents. Narrative is suggested as a knowledge-generating method and its underlying hermeneutic approach is defended as providing validity and theoretical structure. Finally, qualities that distinguish qualitative research from more quantitative investigations are delineated. Starting points for reflecting on qualitative studies and their usefulness are listed. Key words: Qualitative Systematic Review, Evidence-Based Policy, Grey Literature, Scoping Studies, Delphi, ‘Signal and Noise’, Meta-ethnography, Narrative Review, Narrative Method, and Reflective Teams

The Art of collaborative storytelling: arts-based representations of narrative contexts”

Draft for: ISA Research Committee on Biography and Society. The author analyses several theories about science and arts converging in a new point of view. Also talks about the functions of storytelling. He starts his work with these phrases: 'Art and science have a common thread - both are fuelled by creativity. Whether writing a paper based on my data or filling a canvas with paint, both processes tell a story' (Taylor 2001) 'Science and art are complementary expressions of the same collective subconscious of society' (Morton 1997:1

Examining ‘Race’ in Health Research: the case for ‘listening’ to language

Health researchers must be constantly conscious of the contribution that they may or may not make to the politics of race through language. In order to unpack concepts such as multiculturalism race relations ethnic minority citizenship and so forth at the local level it is necessary to begin to understand concepts of race and racism in a global context through the shifting ontological epistemological and methodological frameworks as they relate to the study of race and racism. This paper unpacks these processes and suggests ways forward for better understanding of the language game and concepts of race in health research. To accomplish this language communication and knowledge transfer in a post-modern era are explored. The 'cookbook' approach to diversity is criticised. A relationship-centred framework is suggested as an alternative with an exploration of the meaning of the terms ethnicity and race constructed dialogically within communities. The concept of meaning itself is discussed as a social and political process constructed through language in health interfaces and power relationships

Thoroughly Post-Modern Mary. [A Biographic Narrative Interview With Mary Gergen]

Method: The Biographic Narrative Interpretive Method (Prue CHAMBERLAYNE, Joanna BORNAT & Tom WENGRAF, 2000; Tom WENGRAF 2001; Gabriele ROSENTHAL 2004; Kip JONES 2004) uses an interview technique in the form of a single, initial narrative-inducing question (minimalist-passive), for example, "Tell me the story of your life," to elicit an extensive, uninterrupted narration. This shift encompasses willingness on the part of the researcher to cede "control" of the interview scene to the interviewee and assume the posture of active listener/audience participant. A follow-up sub-session can then be used to ask additional questions, but based only on what the interviewee has said in the first interview and using her/his words and phrases in the same order. Through hypothesising how the lived life informs the told story, the case history is then finally constructed from the two separate threads of the "lived life" and the "told story." In this paper, the "lived life" and "told story" are presented in a "raw" form with the further involvement of the reader in mind. The story has not been "analysed" by the interviewer, but left open and transparent. Still, the production of the story becomes the creative output and social construction of both the storyteller and the interviewer (the performer and the audience) and, in this case particularly, one story of many stories that could have been told by the person interviewed. Routine facts are often back-grounded by the narrator through the use of this method in favour of spontaneity in the storytelling and the creation of meaningful life metaphors. In this way, the personal journey to "who the interviewee is today" is described, rather than merely a list of accomplishments. The Lived Life: Mary GERGEN (née McCANNEY) was born in 1938. The first part of her childhood was spent in the small town of Balaton, Minnesota. She subsequently moved with her family to Minneapolis when she was 12. She attended a suburban middle-class high school where she was popular. She went on to the University of Minnesota after graduating high school and continued to be both a gifted student, well-liked and social. In her final year she met an architecture student and married him shortly after graduation. The couple had a girl, Lisa, and a boy, Michael. Over the next seven years, Mary studied part-time for a Master's Degree in Counselling Psychology. Her husband was a fast track architect and they expected to move to Rome in the early 60s, but moved instead to Boston where he could continue his studies at MIT. At a Halloween party given at Harvard, Mary met Ken GERGEN for the first time. They had a long conversation and she discovered that he had an opening for a research assistant, a position for which she immediately applied. She got the job and Ken encouraged her to finish her Master's Degree. She worked for him for two years; he later accepted a position at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, leaving Harvard (and Mary) behind. Both of their marriages began to end. Ken received a fellowship to study in Rome and Mary and her two children left with him on a ship to Rome in 1968. They were married in October of 1969. Back at Swarthmore, they began to work together on experimental projects, antiwar protests, etc. Ken and Mary lived and worked in Japan in 1972-73. By the mid-70s, Mary realised that she wanted a PhD and became a graduate student at Temple University in Philadelphia in 1974 where she quickly became involved in teaching. In 1976-77 the couple spent a year in Paris. After receiving her PhD, Mary worked for a time at ATT doing longitudinal studies on managers' lives. Eventually, she got a teaching job at the Pennsylvania State University local campus, fifteen minutes drive from their house, where she went through the ranks from assistant professor to associate professor to full Professor of Psychology and of Women's Studies. In 1988-89 Ken and Mary went to Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study, but Ken spent most of the year at Heidelberg in Germany, leaving Mary on her own in the Netherlands. She and Ken persist in teaching and are involved in the Taos Institute promoting social constructionist ideas, as well as co-editing The Positive Aging Newsletter. Mary continues to travel, teach, write and give papers and workshops. Recent publications include Social Construction: A Reader with Ken GERGEN and Feminist Reconstructions in Psychology Narrative, Gender, and Performance. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs040318