1 Assignment Cover Sheet Student Number: 15001578 Module: PHDE0071 – Qualitative data analysis Essay Title: Qualitative Data Analysis – Narrative Analysis Word Count: Excluding table: 5370 Including table: 5499 Submission Deadline: 07/05/2019 Actual Date of Submission: 07/05/2019 Student Declaration: By submitting this coursework, I affirm that the work is my own and that any material derived or quoted from the published or unpublished work of other persons has been duly acknowledged. I confirm that I have read the UCL and Departmental guidance on plagiarism. 2 Introduction The purpose of this assignment will be to investigate Andrew Solomon’s experience of depression, and how this influences his identity and perception of depression, through a Ted- Talk delivered in October 2013. Solomon is a writer and lecturer on politics, psychology and the arts, as well as an activist for LGBT rights and mental health. The approach of qualitative analysis used for this intent will be a narrative analysis. This paper will begin by providing a background into depression, followed by an exploration of narrative analysis and detailing why this is particularly suitable for this research. The paper will then describe the findings from the narrative analysis on the chosen Ted-Talk, with relevance to the research question, before moving on to a reflexive stance of the process and outcome of this approach. Overarching research question How does Andrew Solomon perceive depression? Sub research questions - How has Andrew Solomon’s experience of depression affected his perception of depression? - How has Andrew Solomon’s experience of depression affected his self-identity? Background Depression is defined as a serious mood disorder characterised by a depressed mood and loss of interest or pleasure (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders, 5th edition). According to the World Health Organisation, depression is the most common mental health problem worldwide, with approximately 300 million people affected, highlighting a fundamental need to develop a more thorough understanding of depression and what it means for those affected. The DSM V provides a criterion stating that an individual must experience at least either of the aforementioned characteristics, as well as at least five other additional symptoms from a further list, including loss of energy, inability to concentrate or feeling worthless. All symptoms must be present within two weeks and cause impairment in functioning, for instance 3 socially or occupationally, or considered as causing a clinically significant level of distress in the individual. Whilst this checklist may provide a helpful and strategic form of defining depression, it could be viewed as overly simplistic, reducing ‘depression’ to a few general and observable behaviours. Varying definitions of depression and its causes are underpinned by different approaches. Freud’s psychodynamic theory proposed that some cases were the result of inwardly directed anger (Freud, 1917), linked to rejection by a parent or loss, and the inability to separate oneself from the lost person. Individuals could develop depression after experiencing actual losses, such as the death of a loved one, or symbolic losses, such as the loss of a job. The catalyst for the development of depression was considered an excessive super-ego and if individuals’ self- esteem was dependent on others, they would likely remain depressed. The treatment, psychoanalysis, focuses on the individual resolving underlying developmental conflict, suggesting psychoanalysts do not perceive depression as an ‘illness’ by clinical terms. In contrast the biological model of depression emphasises abnormalities in biochemical mechanisms, particularly lower levels of serotonin and norepinephrine. With this view, depression is a biological problem that needs to be cured with a “biological remedy” (Leader, 2008). This exemplifies differences in perception of depression even at the simplest level of classification as an illness. The diagnostic criteria do not provide an in-depth picture of what depression encompasses and the view of depression differs by theory. Engaging with those with personal experiences of depression is necessary. Through personal recounts of depression, we can learn what depression means to that individual and identify features beyond the clinical diagnosis, such as the reconstruction of one’s identity, and a sense of helplessness. What is narrative analysis? Narrative analysis is originally rooted in literacy theory, however, has become adopted by more diverse fields, including social science. There has been a move away from positivism to studying humans’ “impulse to narrate” (White, 1980), which has led to the multidisciplinary use of 4 narrative analysis in the “historic and hermeneutic” (Banks, 1982) process of storytelling. It is an interpretivist approach which posits that knowledge is socially constructed (Sparkes, 1992). Narrative analysis is a form of qualitative analysis with several approaches towards data collection, analysis and representation (Trahar, 2008). Individuals naturally talk about themselves in a story-telling genre, thus these stories can provide insight into our lives (Clandinin & Connelly 2000; Mattingly & Lawlor 2000). Narratives enable us to remember our past and “imagine the future” (Freeman, 2010). The common occurrence of story-telling means that it can be employed in a variety of research approaches, including psychoanalysis (Spence, 1982; Spence 1987), ethnography (Bruner, 1986) and life history (Peacock, 1984). Whilst narratives may adopt different forms (written text, verbal), it is imperative that the data is a representation of a past event or experience, expressed in the form of a narrative. Whilst the terms ‘narrative’, ‘story’ and ‘account’ are often used interchangeably, ‘narrative’ and ‘story’ are preferred as they more accurately reflect the element of ‘storytelling’ that is central to narrative analysis. However, some theorists further distinguish with ‘story’ referring to genre and ‘narrative’ to rhetoric (Riessman, 1993). Narrative analysis holds the viewpoint that language is an important tool for communication and individuals use language to give meaning to temporally ordered events and experiences. Individuals communicate through stories and researchers must try to understand the meaning of those stories for the individual, as well as adding detail and identifying themes to produce a ‘fuller narrative’ (Ollerenshaw & Creswell, 2002). Studying a storied experience is interesting to researchers because the fact that the individual has constructed a narrative to tell of an event or experience suggests that it is meaningful for them and, as Schank (1990) suggests, are “especially interesting prior experiences”. Definitions of what a narrative constitutes depends on the discipline of the narrative researcher. On the simplest level, a good story should have “a beginning, a middle, and an end, as well as a logic that (at least) makes sense to the narrator” (Denzin, 1989). Rules for transcribing and analysing narratives are not prescribed, though more systematic methods have been proposed, such as Labov’s (1972; Labov & Waletzky, 1967) classification of narratives as stories about a past event told in a specific chronological order, and the presence of six common elements in 5 fully-formed oral narratives: abstract, orientation, complicating action, evaluation, resolution and coda. Alternative ideas include ‘consequential sequencing’, with narratives as events causing one another which may not follow chronologically (Young, 1987) and ‘thematic sequencing’, where the narrative is tied together by theme, rather than time (Michaels, 1981). Within narratives are different genres, such as ‘hypothetical’ (depicting events that did not occur) and ‘topic-centred’ (including past events that are thematically linked). According to Riessman (1991) individuals choose the type of genre depending on the experience and, because listeners view the event from the teller’s point of view, different genres vary in influencing the degree to which listeners care about the situation. The construction of a narrative is important, as narrating is typically viewed as interactive, with the listener influencing how the individual weaves together and presents their narrative. Narratives can therefore be considered dynamic, as they are influenced by the context. Narrative analysis is useful as it can examine ‘what’ (content) and ‘how’ (textual) something is said in the context of speaker and listener (interpersonal) and relate all three levels (Riessman, 1993, pg 21). It is worth highlighting that narrative analysis does not seek to find truths in what the individual is telling us. The illustration that a possible co-construction exists suggests that listeners may invoke different representations of the event from the individual and interpret the narrative differently. As “hearers and readers hear and read differently from each other, and differently from what speakers and writers may intend” (Gee, 1991, pg 27), narratives cannot directly mirror the events being told. However, the relative importance of the interview context on the narrative is subject to the approach of analysis. Riessman (1993) highlights Labov’s approach (1972; Labov & Waletzky, 1967) as one that tends to ignore the interview context, as his model neglects consideration of the relationship between teller and listener. Langellier (1989) echoes this, stating “His assumption [is] that narrative is a relation among clauses rather than an interaction among participants”. Whilst Labov is more concerned with the properties of the narrative, other narrative analysts emphasise the role and impact of the listener, such as through including the interviewer’s guiding questions and indications of his/her confusion towards the narrative (Paget, 1983). The roles and relationship between researcher and narrator must be carefully considered when conducting a 6 narrative-based approach. Given their potential influence, researchers’ pre-existing interests and background must be acknowledged, to avoid biasing the direction of the research. Additionally, awareness of social desirability bias is necessary, particularly where narrators may not be seen favourably. Instead of uncovering truth, narrative analysis focuses on interpreting how narrators give meaning to the experience through devices in the discourse. As such, narratives are “a creative artefact and…not necessarily a representation of actual events (Davies, 2005). This contrasts with other qualitative analysis techniques, such as content analysis, that sees the content as closely tied to the original experience. Riessman (1993) argues that through telling an experience, the individual creates an identity of how they wish to be perceived. Essentially, the narrative serves as a “self-representation” (Goffman, 1959), a “means by which identities may be fashioned” (Rosenweld & Ochberg, 1999) and an opportunity to persuade the listener of the importance of the experience. Thus, language “is not merely descriptive…[I]t is trying to move people” (Burke, 1950). Given that people often use a narrative genre to retell sensitive or traumatic experiences (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996, pg 26), this link to the social construction of one’s identity is plausible, particularly as individuals often reconstruct their identity from their experience. Whilst some scholars focus on the narrative as identity development (McAdams, 1993), others see it as a means of generally understanding the lives of individuals and their use of language (Labov, 1982; Mishler, 1986). The emphasis on the personal story enables researchers to understand subjective aspects, which can be particularly useful under circumstances where this may be neglected, such as in psychiatry (Strauss, 1994). When considering a narrative approach, it is necessary to consider two dimensions derived by Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach and Zilber (1998). The first concerns the unit of analysis - exploring how the narrative is being told as part of a life story, referred to as ‘holistic’, or only analysing parts related to the experience, referred to as ‘category’. A holistic form of analysis is more suitable for research focusing on an event or experience as having changed an individual. Therefore, the present research will adopt a holistic analysis exploring how Solomon’s experience of depression has affected his identity and perception of depression. The second dimension proposed is the focus of analysis: ‘content’ or ‘form’. Researchers using the former 7 based analysis focus on the content of the narrative such as ‘what happened?’, ‘when did it happen?’ and underlying content such as ‘what is the importance of the narrative for the individual?’. Researchers using the latter analyse the structure, such as how the order of events is presented and how the type of language might be used to tell the story. Why narrative analysis? A thematic analysis arose as an initial and alternative method for this research. A thematic analysis would be useful in investigating the research question of how different individuals perceive depression, through conducting interviews and identifying key themes. However, given that the Ted-Talk focuses mainly on only Solomon’s experience with brief mentions of others’ experiences, there is possibly insufficient material to conduct a thematic analysis. Additionally, the clear focus of Solomon narrating a life-changing personal experience suggests a narrative analysis is more appropriate. Thematic analysis has the tendency to break up the data and disrupt the flow of the account because of the use of codes. Instead, narrative analysis allows for more emphasis of the narrative account of the individual, which is more suitable for this serious and emotional context. Narrative analysis is also favoured when researching and understanding the lives of people suffering from mental illness (Kirkpatrick, 2008; Rhodes & de Jager, 2014) and marginalised or stigmatised groups (Josselson, 2010). These topics are personal and embedded with emotion, hence lead people to naturally draw upon their experiences in a story-telling format. Furthermore, there is a stigma attached to mental illness, hence stories can “give voice” to these silenced individuals (Goodson, 1995). Narrative analysis provides an opportunity to study depression which is clearly necessary as Styron (1991) notes that it, “is a word that has slithered through the language like a slug, leaving little trace of its intrinsic malevolence”. Additionally, narrative analysis is particularly useful in psychotherapy, particularly for depression, given that clients’ “narrative-schemas” may reveal information about their self-perception and identity (Howard, 1991), enabling psychotherapists to better understand them and help change their sense of self (Russell & Van Den Broek, 1992). Denzin (1989) also notes that social scientists often narrativize ‘turning points’. Solomon’s experience of depression was undoubtedly a turning point 8 in his life, hence studying his story of his experience of depression and how it influences his identity and perception of what it means to be depressed lends itself to a narrative analysis. The analytical process and emerging findings Data for this analysis was sourced from publicly available data. The narrative is a speech delivered at a conference, shared online as part of the widely viewed Ted-Talks. The structural framework developed by Labov for analysis of personal life stories expressed through verbal monologues (Labov & Waletsky, 1967; Labov, 1972), will be applied to guide the analysis. This model is categorised as a holistic-form analysis and both event-centred and text-centred. Bury (2001) categorised narratives of chronic illness into two groups: ‘contingent’ and ‘moral.’ Contingent narratives focus on the individual’s attempt to make sense of their illness whilst moral narratives focus on how the individual has changed as a result of the illness. Bury notes that real-life narratives often involve a combination of the two, which is the case for Solomon’s narrative. Abstract Summary of narrative “a Plank in Reason, broke, and I fell down and down” Orientation Setting: Who is involved, where and when did it take place… “In 1991…my mother died…I moved back to the United States” “In 1994…” Complicating action Sequence of events: Focus on the event/moments which are central to the narrative “If I'm not the tough person who could have made it through a concentration camp…who am I?” Evaluation Significance of the event and the reason the narrative is being told “I…figured out that depression was…braided so deep into us that there was no separating it from our character and personality” Resolution Result “that experience has allowed me to experience positive emotion in a more…focused way.” 9 Abstract Solomon’s narrative begins with a preview akin to the abstract component, though in a less explicit manner. He paints an image of the lead up to the pivotal moment of depression, using the metaphor of a funeral, without mentioning depression until after this imagery has been presented. The scene is set with the immediate mention of “funeral” and “mourners” perhaps suggesting to the audience how intrusively and unexpectedly depression entered his life. The sombre tone is maintained with the heavy imagery of “boots of lead”, and the use of repetition of “treading – treading” and “beating – beating” invokes a slow pace perhaps signalling to the reader the loss of energy that is a symptom commonly observed in individuals with depression and which Solomon experienced. The slow tone contrasts sharply with the “plunge” into depression, which also abruptly ends the metaphor. Solomon seemingly hints at depression being associated with the feeling of losing control, by referring to how he “fell down and down,” which suggests no hope of escaping depression’s “grip”. Psychologists originally linked helplessness to anxiety (Freud & Breuer, 1895) but it later became associated with depression (Bibring, 1953; Clark & Beck, 1999), which is reflected by practitioners’ view of helplessness as a symptom of depression. Solomon’s representation of a loss of control is mirrored by the women in Burr and Chapman’s (2004) interviews, who also describe of a sense of helplessness. This is an important indication that Solomon’s perception of depression as a state of helplessness is not only a key personal viewpoint but that it is shared by others with experience of mental illness and practitioners. Orientation Solomon provides a brief background that appears important for character-building. He seems to value the audience knowing that he was not greatly affected by losses, including the death of his mother and a broken relationship. The impression he gives is one of disagreeing with research findings that experience of a loss and depression are necessarily linked, such as the loss of a relationship causing depression (Mathes, Adams & Davis, 1985), by justifying that he “got through…those experiences intact”. It is likely that this emphasis is an argument that depression Coda How the narrator brings it back to the present 10 cannot necessarily be traced to and attributed to recent trauma or loss, as often proposed. This character-building is also particularly relevant as people use narratives to construct an identity and experiences of mental illnesses are associated with identity change. As such, the outline of how Solomon presents and perceives himself as a strong, independent individual is used to relay his shock at how someone like him could be a ‘victim’ of depression. This is emphasised by the succinct summary of almost disbelief that “three years later, [he] found [himself] losing interest in almost everything”. Complicating action A major symptom of depression is the loss of interest. His loss of interest is stated explicitly and further elaborated to include things he “had previously wanted to do”, suggesting that this is core to Solomon’s experience and perception of depression. Solomon describes how “the opposite of depression is not happiness” indicating that he believes people who have not experienced depression have this misconstrued perception and clarifies that it is instead “vitality”. He appears critical of the general lack of understanding of depression by reaffirming straightforwardly that “people think of depression as being just sadness” and confuse “depression, grief and sadness”. This unawareness is indeed exhibited by the fact that only 3 out of 10 people were able to label a vignette representing major depressive disorder as a mental illness (Link, Phelan, Bresnahan, Stueve & Pescosolido, 1999). Perhaps even more surprising is that even carers of individuals with depression simply described them as being “constantly sad” (Highet, Thompson & McNair, 2005) and reported, in hindsight, noticing the symptoms “social withdrawal” and “isolation” but did not attribute the behaviour to an illness, rather “a temporary mood state”. The researchers support Solomon’s belief of a general lack of knowledge in the community (Jorm et al, 1997; Highet, Hickie & Davenport, 2002) as to what constitutes depression beyond the general diagnosis and what it means for the individual, summarising the carers as largely unaware of the range of symptoms of depression. Solomon may therefore have chosen to use simple language to increase accessibility of the message to the audience that the criticality of depression is “much too much sadness, much too much grief at far too slight a cause”. 11 In the chronicling of the events Solomon then begins to describe of the unbearable addition of anxiety, that is commonly reported amongst individuals with depression (Highet el al, 2005). The anxiety was accompanied by intense, emotion filled responses that it was “too painful to be alive” but that he did not want “to hurt other people”, and less of a sense of emptiness. For Solomon, accepting depression itself was not the problem but “being afraid all the time but not…knowing what…you’re afraid of”, highlighting subjectivity in experiences of depression and many components of depression. This multi-component view of depression is shared by Shelley (2018) who advocates that depression should not be viewed as a ‘whole’ but must be dissected into the different parts when looking at treatment, future research and policy interventions. Reflective of typical narratives, a theme of identity runs throughout Solomon’s narrative, which depression disrupts. Solomon begins his narrative by describing himself as “tough” but once diagnosed with depression, his representation of himself is someone confused about their identity. He is so infatuated with how depression influences his self-perception that he even questions his identity in the context of therapy and medication, such as whether taking medicine is making him “more fully myself” or “making me someone else”. Identity is therefore presented by Solomon as majorly influenced by depression. He reveals how hearing someone describe of depression “as a slower way of being dead” provided relief that depression “is serious business”. Solomon’s example of another individual’s definition to which he relates to is seemingly used to validate his perception of depression and identity crisis. Presentation of his identity conflict also seems an attempt to convince people that medication does not necessarily solve depression, without potentially adding problems. He seems to be critical of the popular treatment of depression with medication, which could be explained by Leader’s (2008) claim that the reasoning behind medication (removing deviant behaviour) causes the sufferer to experience greater pressure in being part of the norm. Leader’s view that not understanding depression and conceiving it as purely a biological problem and neglecting individuals’ “unconscious mental life”, is a problem in the perception of depression, which is line with Solomon’s. Solomon describes wanting to understand differences in people’s ability to cope with depression, thus conducted interviews with individuals with depression. He revisits the concept of losing 12 control, describing how the interviewee “plummeted” and “plunged” into depression. As he uses this language to describe of his and others’ experiences, either intentionally or unconsciously he creates a sense of unity amongst individuals with depression. This pattern continues as he switches to using “we” (“we believe we are seeing the truth”), grouping those with depression from those who do not and identifying himself as part of the former ‘group’. Structurally, from moving from a personal experience to retelling others’ experience, he is perhaps trying to reduce the gap between himself and the audience, so that they can sympathise with a more distant concept. Evaluation Several key messages arise from Solomon’s narrative. Firstly, a self-awareness. Solomon repeatedly reports acknowledging that his behaviour and feelings are “ridiculous”, even during the episode, yet in the “grip” of depression he cannot escape. The result is a spiral of “thinking less and feeling less” which appears to reinforce the lack of movement and loss of interest as symptoms of depression. Secondly, his experience with depression is centred heavily on discovery - discovery of the impact of depression on one’s identity because it cannot be “separate[ed] from our character and personality”. This identity crisis and rebuilding appears critical in his experience of depression and he seems to extend this to be the case for all individuals with depression. Studies of the narratives of individuals recovering from a range of mental illnesses suggest that Solomon’s collective outlook is valid, as the theme of redefining oneself is commonly reported (Brown, 2008). Solomon also details a negative reaction to the “appalling” treatments that are “not very effective” but “extremely costly” and connected to “innumerable side effects”. His suffering is supported by the well-documented adverse side effects of antidepressants in clinical research (Papakostas, 2008; Cipriani et al, 2009) which claim that side effects are responsible for up to 50% of individuals discontinuing treatment within six-months of starting treatment (Hunot, Horne, Leese & Churchill, 2007). Whilst it would be natural to share the process of recovery, this section interrupts the story on depression as part of one’s identity, perhaps indicating that the “disaster” of such treatments is so ingrained in Solomon’s memory that it ‘jumped out’ and he must advocate for change for the future. 13 Resolution In what Labov terms ‘resolution’, Solomon’s narrative shifts to his present state. Whilst the experience of depression was “hellish”, he presents it as a period of learning which has influenced his present outlook and identity. A positive outlook for recovery has been reported by a number of individuals recovering from mental illness, who describe changing their attitudes and beliefs (Brown, 2008). Solomon seemingly agrees with such findings, arguing that through experiencing and overcoming depression, which provided a stark contrast of negative emotions, he is now able to “experience positive emotion in a more intense and…focused way”. He also returns to the misunderstanding of depression as the opposite of happiness at the end of his narrative to remind and convince the listeners that this is incorrect, and, emphasises the loss of vitality. This is reiterated by a final personal example that “these days, my life is vital, even on the days when I’m sad”, suggesting a lack of vitality during his episode of depression, but which has now returned having overcome depression. Coda There is no distinct coda, rather it can be argued that Solomon combines it with the resolution, bringing the narrative back to the present by describing about his present self. The end of his narrative is however signalled by a clear marker of exit talk - “thank you”. Ted-Talks are intended to inform individuals; thus this narrative can be interpreted as Solomon using this as an opportunity to redefine depression in terms beyond clinical symptoms and based on people’s personal experiences. By not drawing on all the clinical symptoms, he is perhaps trying to bring to light more unfamiliar symptoms that those with personal experiences of depression often highlight, hence supposedly fundamental to an individual’s experience of depression. Perhaps Solomon believes that the focus of too many studies is on a clinical diagnosis and biological perspective, so desires to generate a better perception of depression by “giv[ing] voice” to individuals, including himself, who have overcome depression, rather than psychologists and clinicians. Solomon’s perception of depression is a mental illness of somatic 14 symptoms and mental symptoms. Depression does not only affect the individual physically, but Solomon adds weight to how depression makes the person feel. There is a constant theme of identity and the influence of depression on his identity is told through a journey-like structure, as he begins as a “tough” person at the beginning of the narrative, then experiences a loss of identity when suffering from depression in the middle of the narrative and then concluding the narrative, having overcome depression, he has rebuilt an identity. Depression forced Solomon to question his identity, though he emerges at the end having learnt from the experience. As with many Ted-Talks there is an element of humour in the narrative. The purpose of Solomon’s inclusion of humour may be to build a closer relationship with the listeners, as they are more likely to sympathise and listen to his message the less they feel like strangers. Aside from the humorous moments, Solomon’s facial expression is generally neutral, as if in narrating the experience he relives those moments and part of the identity of depression of not feeling anything resurfaces. Reflections Conducting a narrative analysis was daunting because of its broad nature, with no single approach or definition of a ‘narrative’ and no “clear-cut ‘how to’ toolkit to guide novices” in doing narrative analysis (Andrew, Squire & Tamboukou, 2013, pg 14). I found that qualitative research, compared to quantitative, requires greater understanding of the approaches to inform the analysis to be carried out. Labov’s structural framework is one of the more accessible approaches, providing a clear structure for organising the narrative, which facilitates the process of interpretation (Riessman, 1993) and which I transferred to structure the writeup. This was particularly useful for a novice like me with no previous knowledge on conducting a narrative analysis nor general qualitative research experience. This framework worked well as a starting point to the analysis, as it required familiarising myself with the transcript, through several re- readings, to identify how the narrative corresponded to Labov’s framework. I found this challenging at first, as it seemed subjective and required my judgement, which is unlike quantitative research which I am used to. 15 Though the current narrative largely followed the framework, not all the narratives can be mapped onto and analysed using the Labovian approach. For example, Johnstone (2001) states that many narratives do not provide a summary at the beginning. Similarly not all narratives consist of all Labov’s features, as was the case in the present analysis. If sections of the narrative are not interpreted or acknowledged the analysis could be considered incomplete, thus the researcher must be transparent in their application of an approach. The approach is useful when considered a guide, though researchers should bear in mind that narratives may not strictly adhere to the framework because of the nature of individual stories. A methodological issue for such research methods is the interviewer’s personal experience or research interests influencing the questions they ask and interpreting the narrative. Therefore the direction of the interview and what interviewees share can be biased in a way that seeks to confirm the interviewer’s beliefs. The current analysis is less guilty of this critique, given that there was no interviewer position nor questions to shape the narrative. The narrative was arguably constructed simply with what Solomon perceives as important and should be shared and thus may be treated as “sole-authored” and “inside the designated narrator” (Riessman, 1993). However, I am aware that there is still a degree of subjectivity concerning the process of analysing the narrative. In choosing what aspects are worth highlighting and interpreting, this process fulfils this issue. I have covered a range of Solomon’s narrative to minimise this. Narrative research is frequently criticised for validity, particularly establishing a procedure to verify the validity of a narrative and the interpretation. This stems from the issue that instruments cannot assess the existence of a ‘truth’ as “a personal narrative is not meant to be read as an exact record of what happened” (Riessman, 1993). Therefore, Riessman stresses that validation procedures running on realist assumptions cannot be applied to narrative research. Given that different individuals construct different narratives of the same event (Chafe, 1980) and even straightforward events may be ordered differently (Goodman, 1980), this clearly supports Riessman’s claim that stories are not “static” and thus it is perfectly acceptable for “meanings of experiences [to] shift as consciousness changes” and be valid. ‘Trustworthiness’ is a better measure of validity in narrative analysis and Riessman highlights several ways to assess the 16 ‘trustworthiness’ of the researcher’s interpretation. These include evaluating whether the interpretation is persuasive and plausible and having the narrator judge whether the representation is adequate. As this assignment was conducted with secondary data the latter was not viable. In reflecting on the ‘trustworthiness’ of my interpretation of Solomon’s narrative I hope to have provided a persuasive and plausible interpretation. I have provided fragments of the original account to support my interpretations and to allow the reader to judge whether my interpretation is valid and whether other alternative interpretations are possible. Through this assignment I developed a greater awareness of the issue of the level of detail in the process of transcription. I was hesitant in how detailed my transcription would need to be to generate sufficient data to analyse. Features important in conveying messages in the narrative, such as emotion, can easily be lost in transcription. Millet (1971) recalls losing an interviewee’s subtle portrayal of pain, in which their memories were so painful that they were repressed and thus required the interviewer to speak more to unearth those memories. As the interviewer’s speech was later edited out, their necessary support as a measure of the pain of those memories was also removed. Therefore, in transcribing the narrative, an interpretation inaccurately representing the narrator’s experience was created. Despite the genre of a ‘traumatic’ experience I would argue that emotional features were less potent in Solomon’s narrative, given that the narrative was likely somewhat rehearsed and intended to be shared with a large audience. Perhaps more raw emotions that would be exhibited in such a retelling are limited to more private contexts. Nevertheless I believe that a closer and more detailed analysis may have enabled me to identify more subtle, implicit features. For this assignment we were restricted to applying only one method of qualitative data analysis. Whilst I believe that narrative analysis was a valid method given the story-telling genre of Solomon’s talk (Earthy & Cronin, 2008) and yielded rich findings, depression is a global issue. One of the key messages from Solomon’s narrative is the mismatch in how he perceives depression and how it is currently viewed. Individuals with personal experiences of depression can provide a more accurate picture of depression. Therefore, whilst a narrative analysis on one individual is beneficial because of the detail, it is limited in its generalisability, so, on a practical level, it would be useful to understand more experiences of depression. The next step should be 17 conducting a thematic analysis using interviews, with overlapping themes further informing the ways in which depression is experienced. Differences and similarities may pave the way for a better understanding of depression and highlight factors associated with depression, such as affecting one’s identity, that go beyond clinical symptoms. 18 References Andrews, M., Squire, C., & Tamboukou, M. (2013). Doing narrative research / edited by Molly Andrews, Corinne Squire, Maria Tamboukou.(Second ed.). Los Angeles ; London: SAGE. Banks, S. A. (1982). Once upon a time: Interpretation in literature and medicine. Literature and Medicine, 1(1), 24-28. Bibring, E. (1953). The mechanism of depression. Brown, W. (2008). Narratives of mental health recovery. Social Alternatives, 27(4), 42-48. Bruner, E. (1986). Ethnography as Narrative in Turner. V. and Bruner, EM (eds.) The Anthroplogy of Experience Chicago: University of Illinois. Burke, K. (1950). A Rhetoric of Motives. New York: George Braziller. Burr, J., & Chapman, T. (2004). Contextualising experiences of depression in women from South Asian communities: a discursive approach. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26(4), 433-452. Bury, M. (2001). Illness narratives: fact or fiction?. Sociology of health & illness, 23(3), 263-285. Chafe, W. L. (1980). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Cipriani, A., Furukawa, T. A., Salanti, G., Geddes, J. R., Higgins, J. P., Churchill, R., ... & Tansella, M. (2009). Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple- treatments meta-analysis. The lancet, 373(9665), 746-758. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry. Clark, D. A., & Beck, A. T. (1999). Scientific foundations of cognitive theory and therapy of depression. John Wiley & Sons. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data : Complementary research strategies / Amanda Coffey, Paul Atkinson. Davies, A. (2005). A Glossary of Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press Denzin, N. K. (1989) Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive biography (Vol. 17). Sage. 19 Earthy, S., & Cronin, A. (2008). Narrative analysis. In. Gilbert, N. (2008). Researching Social Life 3rd Edition. Freeman, M. (2009). Hindsight: The promise and peril of looking backward. Oxford University Press. Freud, S. (1917). Mourning and melancholia. Standard edition, 14(19), 17. Freud, S., & Breuer, J. (1895). Studies on hysteria. SE, 2. London: Hogarth, 255-305. Gee, J. P. (1991). A linguistic approach to narrative. Journal of narrative and life history, 1(1), 15- 39. Goffman, E. (1978). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Harmondsworth. Goodman, N. (1980). Twisted tales; or, story, study, and symphony. Critical Inquiry, 7(1), 103-119. Goodson, I. F. (1995). The story so far: Personal knowledge and the political. International journal of qualitative studies in education, 8(1), 89-98. Highet, N. J., Hickie, I. B., & Davenport, T. A. (2002). Monitoring awareness of and attitudes to depression in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia, 176(10), S63-S63. Highet, N., Thompson, M., & McNair, B. (2005). Identifying depression in a family member: The carers' experience. Journal of Affective Disorders, 87(1), 25-33. Howard, G. S. (1991). Culture tales: A narrative approach to thinking, cross-cultural psychology, and psychotherapy. American psychologist, 46(3), 187. Hunot, V. M., Horne, R., Leese, M. N., & Churchill, R. C. (2007). A cohort study of adherence to antidepressants in primary care: the influence of antidepressant concerns and treatment preferences. Primary care companion to the Journal of clinical psychiatry, 9(2), 91. Johnstone, B. (2001). Discourse analysis and narrative. In. Herring, S. C., Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. (2001). The handbook of discourse analysis. Jorm, A. F., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., Christensen, H., Rodgers, B., & Pollitt, P. (1997). “Mental health literacy”: a survey of the public's ability to recognise mental disorders and their beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment. Medical journal of Australia, 166(4), 182-186. Josselson, R. (2010). Narrative research. Encyclopedia of research design, 869-875. 20 Kirkpatrick, H. (2008). A narrative framework for understanding experiences of people with severe mental illnesses. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 22(2), 61-68. Labov, W. (1972). „The transformation of experience in narrative syntax.‟ In Labov, W (ed.) Language in the inner city: in the Black English vernacular. Labov, W. (1982). Speech actions and reactions in personal narrative. Analyzing discourse: Text and talk, 219-247. Labov, W., & Waletzky,J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Essays on the verbal and visual arts, 12-44. Langellier, K. M. (1989). Personal narratives: Perspectives on theory and research. Text and Performance Quarterly, 9(4), 243-276. Leader, D. (2008). The new black: Mourning, melancholia and depression. Penguin UK. Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis, and interpretation (Vol. 47). Sage. Link, B. G., Phelan, J. C., Bresnahan, M., Stueve, A., & Pescosolido, B. A. (1999). Public conceptions of mental illness: labels, causes, dangerousness, and social distance. American journal of public health, 89(9), 1328-1333. Mathes, E. W., Adams, H. E., & Davies, R. M. (1985). Jealousy: Loss of relationship rewards, loss of self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and anger. Journal of personality and social psychology, 48(6), 1552. Mattingly, C., & Lawlor, M. (2000). Learning from stories: Narrative interviewing in cross-cultural research. Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy, 7(1), 4-14. McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. Guilford Press. Michaels, S. (1981). “Sharing time”: Children's narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Language in society, 10(3), 423-442. Millett, K. (1975). The prostitution papers: A candid dialogue. Paladin. 21 Mishler, E. G. (1991). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ollerenshaw, J. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2002). Narrative research: A comparison of two restorying data analysis approaches. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(3), 329-347. Paget, M. A. (1983). Experience and knowledge. Human Studies, 6(1), 67-90. Papakostas, G. I. (2008). Tolerability of modern antidepressants. The Journal of clinical psychiatry, 69, 8-13. Peacock, J. (1984). Religion and life history: an exploration in cultural psychology. Text, play, and story: The construction and reconstruction of self and society, 94-116. Rhodes, P., & De Jager, A. (2014). Narrative studies of recovery: A critical resource for clinicians. Clinical Psychologist, 18(3), 99-107. Riessman, C. K. (1991). Beyond reductionism: Narrative genres in divorce accounts. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1(1), 41-68. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis (Vol. 30). Sage. Rosenwald, G. C., & Ochberg, R. L. (1992). Storied lives: The cultural politics of self-understanding. Yale University Press. Russell, R. L., & Van den Broek, P. (1992). Changing narrative schemas in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 29(3), 344. Schank, R. C. (1990). Tell me a story: A new look at real and artificial memory. Charles Scribner's Sons. Shelley, B. P. (2018). The invisible illness of depression: “Never Say Never Mind, Mind the Mind,” and Mind the “Science Gap”. Archives of Medicine and Health Sciences, 6(1), 1. Sparkes, A. (1992). The paradigms debate: an extended review and a celebration of difference Research in physical education and sport: exploring alternative visions. A. Sparkes. London, Washington, DC: vi. Spence, D. P. (1984). Narrative truth and historical truth: Meaning and interpretation in psychoanalysis. WW Norton & Company. 22 Spence, D. P. (1987). The Freudian metaphor: Toward paradigm change in psychoanalysis. WW Norton & Co. Strauss, J. S. (1994). The person with schizophrenia as a person: II: Approaches to the subjective and complex. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 164(S23), 103-107. Styron, W. (1991). Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness. London: Jonathan Cape. Trahar, S. (2008). It starts with once upon a time…. Compare, 38(3), 259-266. White, H. (1980). The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. Critical inquiry, 7(1), 5-27. Young, K. G. (1987). Taleworlds and storyrealms: The phenomenology of narrative. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.







































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































学霸联盟