Making Sense of Making Sense of Time: Longitudinal Narrative Research

Method

Scoping reviews are an iterative process seeking to gauge the breadth of research on a topic through critical synthesis. Topics for scoping reviews are often broad and specific research questions may be less well-defined (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010). This scoping review followed a framework involving five stages; identifying research questions, identifying relevant studies, selecting studies, charting data, and collating, summarizing, and reporting results (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005). While this review involved a non-exhaustive search, the articles provide an insight into longitudinal narrative methodology and practice that is consistent with other scoping reviews (Smith Battle et al., 2018).

Scoping Review Questions

What does narrative theorizing suggest about repeated interviews across time?

How is time understood in empirical research using longitudinal narrative interviews?

Participant Narratives, Research Narratives, and Researcher Reflexivity

Longitudinal narrative research attends to narrative across multiple layers; participant stories, the researcher as narrator and the research as narrative. Participant narratives are the launching point for understanding time in narrative, where the non-linear nature of time in narrative is most easily observable. Interviewing participants more than once requires an understanding of how to interpret these data collections in relation to one another. Narratives collected at different times are often treated as iterations of a narrative life story (Adler, 2019). Attention is drawn to identifying processes of growth and development and moments of dispositional consistency, wherein changes to the narrative are compared against each other, assuming that the participants themselves remain relatively unchanged. For example, in case study approaches to understanding narratives over time, researchers have categorized participants as narrative “low repeaters” or “high repeaters” (Adler, 2019). While understanding the ways in which a participant might become a “high” or “low” narrative repeater draws on appropriate theory, it is grounded in narrative as a reflection over time points that are distinct units of understanding combined to craft a whole identity. Adler (2019) articulates that there is a need to consider the mechanism of the narrative as equally as the content: “Thus, my story of how I have changed and remained the same over time will itself change and remain the same over time” (p. 135). This presents a contradiction in some of the work presented, in terms of the degree to which what is said is a narrative device as compared to a reflection of consistent personal characteristics.

The challenge of characterizing narratives is not new to this form of inquiry. Polkinghorne discusses the ways that narratives are not only the source of data, but also created through data (Polkinghorne, 1995). Articles within this review included different forms of data collection such as survey and structured interviews that were interpreted as a narrative in some research, while not narrative data themselves (Hand, 2020; McLean et al., 2021; Waldrop, 2007). Just as participant stories are narratives, data itself can be communicated as a research narrative. What constitutes narrative is both practically and conceptually embedded within research projects. For example, the authors used specific terms to capture narrative research articles in the search process of this review. The language choices made by the authors embeds a concept of narrative into the mechanisms of this research. Whether receiving a narrative directly from a participant or using data to decipher implicit narrative, the interpretation of the story is predicated upon the researcher.

Narrative theorizing is built upon an understanding of the co-creation and interpersonal nature of narrative. Sánchez-Mira and Bernardi (2021) elaborates to say that temporal perspectives are not just individually situated but are constructed through inter-subjective processes between researchers and participants. The fluidity of a participant’s narrative is not simply predicated upon the way that time has altered their perspective on a specific event, but also in how they relate to the audience their narration is directed towards, to the researcher, as well as to other implied audiences. To further complicate this relationship, time shapes both the researcher and participant; researchers’ conceptualization of their participants, their methods, and their theories change over time (Bruce et al., 2016). This interaction may provide opportunities for dialogue between researcher and participants that strengthen reflective practice. However, these time consuming and emotionally intensive practices challenge researchers as they navigate two distinct yet interacting streams of experiences and perspectives. Confronted with the various layers of narrative in longitudinal narrative research, it is important to interrogate the ways that participant narratives are woven together with research and researcher narratives.

Much attention has been given to the role of time in enabling rapport between researchers and participants. In case-study approaches, repeat interviews serve as locations for building relationships between researchers and participants that is seen to enrich the narratives (Reynolds & Beresford, 2020). The relationships built over time are widely considered essential in understanding the implicit meanings embedded in participant narratives (Macqueen & Patterson, 2021). In many cases researchers form bonds with participant over the course of their longitudinal studies, becoming a part of their experiences. However, this influences these relationships, shaping the data collected. An important challenge for researchers in longitudinal narrative studies is understanding how power, and control over the narrative telling over time becomes amplified in repeated interviews (Barrington et al., 2021). While repeat interviews enable relationships that could help to inform rich data, some repeat data collections operate on simplistic assumptions about the relationships between participants and researchers improving over time. The role of the researcher in inviting and shaping narrative retelling is more nuanced than repeated interviews producing better and more detailed narrative accounts. Optimistic perspectives on participant-researcher relationships over time simplifies the role of time and context. Attending to the possibility of relationship contexts changing is a necessary step in analysis aligning with theory, that likewise may provide opportunities for dialogical reflection.

Over Time and the Time Between

Longitudinal narrative research operates over time through practices that are subtly distinct from theoretical intentions. This operates under assumptions that research cultivated through second interviews provides more complete data over time. Reynolds and Beresford (2020) explain that single interviews seemed insufficient for participants to narrate the impact of their participatory research experiences on multiple domains of their lives. Two interviews were conducted to enable fuller and different narrative versions. However, selecting and prioritizing events and crafting them into narrative storylines is inherent to narrative theorizing. Repeated opportunities do not only offer more complete data; they also offer opportunities in which stories can evolve or be repeated in subsequent interviews. Indeed, while repeat narrative interviews are understood as more than a follow-up, their purpose and function seem to evolve and at times unsettle the researchers conducting them.

Ad-hoc second interviews are frequently implemented without an established theoretical or practical justification. Follow-up interviews were occasionally described as being conducted unintentionally and “as needed” (Donnellan et al., 2019; Misono et al., 2019). Donnellan et al. (2019) describe the unpredictable nature of dementia care as justification for avoiding pre-arranged follow-up interview scheduling. This reasoning points to an orientation to time as more than time elapsed; it also includes time as producing significant changes in life circumstances. Change experienced might map more closely to the research interest than time elapsed for this project on stability of resilience during dementia care. Repeated narrative interviews can account for the ways that people and circumstances change over time in ways that go beyond time intervals between data collections. When there is theoretical interest in significant changes over time in events or experiences, these shifts could be used to schedule repeat interviews. This approach aligns with narrative theorizing and might serve to clarify or enhance data from preliminary interviews.

Within a research project, second interviews are inherently positioned in relationship to the first interview (Henderson et al., 2012). Ryan et al. (2016) notes that they began their second interview by briefly addressing the previous interview. This presents a framework for both researcher and participant that positions the new narrative in relation to what had happened before. Second interviews conducted after analysis of the first, while not intending to validate previous findings, may question conclusions drawn from the analysis of earlier interviews. Impromptu second interviews use a similar approach, where data from the first interviews is analyzed and interpreted first, as a complete set of data (Ryan et al., 2016). Despite theorizing time in a non-linear fashion, the practice of framing second interviews as a subsequent act structures the research narrative within linear time. Singer (2019) explicitly states that interpretations made based on the first half of interviews would lead to different conclusions than those reached when considering the interviews as a complete set. The shift in schedules used between earlier and later interviews is used to both show life story development and to anticipate future narrative foreshadowing. Ryan et al. (2016) describe how the analysis of subsequent interviews risked undermining their findings from the first interview. Rather than enhance the richness and complexity of the findings from the first interview, second interview data were approached as discrete research events. Due to the relative simplicity, findings were interpreted through familiar systems of comparison through linear time. This approach may limit the capacity to understand these repeated narratives as negotiations of the past, present, and future. Despite the intention to step away from linear time in multiple interviewing, the practice and framing of second interviews as additive does not align with narrative theorizing.

In response to such tensions, longitudinal narrative researchers are faced with the challenge of interpreting multiple interviews through iterative or summative processes. While the concept of change over time is central in both methods of analysis, iterative approaches emphasize points in time, whereas summative approaches observe the cumulative narrative (Bernardi, 2021). Iterative approaches may better address the layers of narrative at each time point. Meanwhile, summative approaches may better adhere to theorizing time as non-linear. In either approach, attending to the time between interviews is essential for understanding the flow, context, and meaning of narratives over time. Longitudinal projects that explicitly attend to these possibilities when establishing analytic plans would strengthen the theoretical orientation to time.

From the perspective of narrative theorizing, the time between interviews enables time for reflection, and changes in contextual circumstances that shape narrative in new ways. In one study on liminality, the time between interviews enabled self-reflection that encouraged participants to re-visit past, present and futures selves as they negotiated new identities (Gordon et al., 2020). This demonstrates that transitions of identity are not linear, however it is unclear how time, and the amount of time, between points of reflection influences those insights. The time between interviews is inconsistent within studies, making it unclear how time fits into what the research is designed to accomplish. In a study of palliative care, participants in the same study were interviewed at many different intervals, some with more interviews than others, and a range of interview length from 30-120 minutes (Öhlén et al., 2013). In their study of child abuse victims, the time between first and second interviews ranged from less than an hour to over a year (Szojka et al., 2020). Such approaches ignore the broader contextual changes which occur alongside opportunities for participants to re-engage with storytelling. While it may not be desirable to strictly adhere to uniformity in the time between interviews, narrative theorizing posits the need to attend to the time between. A deliberate focus on the micro, meso, and macro factors that contribute to contextual changes between interviews may better inform our understanding of how time between influences change over time.

Time Management for Managing Time

Managing the choices and flexibility of analytic approaches takes substantial time for researchers, and illuminates contextual challenges for both analyzing and presenting research (Tuthill et al., 2020). The process of collecting, interpreting, and communicating longitudinal data sets takes time and resources. Empirical studies utilizing repeat narrative interview described time as the most significant limitation to their research. Jindal-Snape et al. (2019) articulate this tension in their research with 11 participants. Their data set was described as not small enough to justify a case study approach, and yet too large to adequately address the intricacies and nuances of narrative theorizing on time. Singer (2019) focused their analysis on a single participant to explore life story narration, personally meaningful memories, and broader narrative scripts. Due to the need to manage time in the research process, researchers negotiate opportunity-cost and make choices to adhere to methodologies and practices that do not entirely encompass the potential of their data. Bernardi (2021) addresses these challenges by encouraging researchers to “scale-up” by bringing together smaller studies and incorporating smaller projects into existing larger data sets. This can enable access to rich data sets, while enhancing the cross-context applicability of qualitative longitudinal research.

Yet, challenges with methodological and empirical coherence are also prevalent when repeat narrative interviewing is embedded into larger studies, particularly when it comes to theoretical clarity. Longitudinal studies with quantitative and qualitative approaches have seen narratives emerge unexpectedly from their data (Hoffman et al., 2021). Hoffman et al. (2021) did not anticipate the extent to which participants would elaborate on their stories and were unequipped with recording devices to record these narratives, instead relying on field notes to capture stories. Narratives thus emerge naturally, unexpectedly, and as disruptions to pre-established methods. Indeed, when embedded in larger studies, the intention and aims of multiple interviews are often not specific to the method of the research (McTigue et al., 2021). Conducting repeat narrative interviews often appears to supplement other methods of analysis, rather than being conceptualized as stand-alone research (Makleff et al., 2021). This presents challenges when attending to the importance of the interpersonal construction of narratives through interviews. Embedding repeat narrative interviewing into existing research can produce theoretically inconsistent findings that produces an index of empirical studies unable to bridge the gap between methodology and practice in longitudinal narrative research.

So Many Theories, So Little Time

Although all the research included in this scoping review was oriented to narrative research, narrative theory was not the only theory used to make sense of experience. In attempts to understand the role of time in repeat narrative interviewing, researchers have included a variety of theoretical perspectives. Methodological stances used included grounded theory, phenomenology, Bourdieusien theory, social constructivism, hermeneutics, and bricolage. While many of these methodologies may be complimentary, their purposes are relatively distinct. For example, grounded theory is used to theorize psychological and social processes, meanwhile narrative theory is concerned with how research participants organize their experience and convey this through storytelling (Lal et al., 2012). Using narrative data in theory construction requires an understanding of narrative interviews as recounting events relayed in a specific context to achieve a personal and interactional purpose. Combining these elements requires attention to the topics of narrative interview as well as the narrative purpose. Considering the nuances of theoretical approaches to narrative research is necessary to successfully achieve the purpose of multiple narrative interviews.

Picking a specific theoretical stance enables researchers to draw strong conclusions, and present their findings in an epistemologically meaningful way, thereby clarifying their research purposes. For example, in their work on liminality, Gordon et al. (2020) acknowledge how identity theory prioritizes the interpersonal factors of liminality and focuses less on the structural factors of identity narratives. However, the rationale behind this decision does not clearly articulate how this non-narrative theory provides a compatible orientation to the role of time. Other authors take the opportunity to situate theory more directly in relation to narrative and time. For example, Morden et al. (2017) intentionally draw only on specific aspects of grounded theory to interpret temporally divergent meanings of pain in narrative. Clearly articulating the function of non-narrative theory when applied to the analysis of narrative data is essential in navigating the ambiguous and complex ways that narrative is situated in the past, present, and future.

Singular theoretical perspectives may not provide comprehensive conceptualizations of time when making sense of narrative. Theoretical pluralism may address some of the challenges in applying single theoretical perspectives. In their discussion of identity, De Ruiter and Gmelin (2021) identify a conflation of ‘real-time identity’ and ‘micro-level identity,’ and how these misinterpretations divide the field. They emphasize that in order to bridge this gap, there is a need for a more “theoretically comprehensive epistemological approach” (De Ruiter & Gmelin, 2021). Methods like bricolage attempt to give form to multiple and often ambiguous theoretical approaches (Vandenbussche et al., 2019). Indeed, multiple strands of data enable researchers to see subtle temporal shifts and qualities in their data (Balmer et al., 2021). Pluralistic approaches to longitudinal narrative interpretation may begin to bridge a gap between theoretical sense-making of time and research practice.

Despite the potential benefits of theoretical pluralism, combining theories must proceed with caution to retain a focus on narrative obligations to time. Making sense of narrative through time requires theory to serve as flexible guideline for practice, rather than a strict set of rules. For example, Hatala et al. (2020) utilize a modified grounded theory approach paired with indigenous methodology of “two-eyed seeing” to better capture the longitudinal elements of narratives of Canadian youth. While this pluralistic approach is valuable for how it captures the cultural understandings of time as non-linear, the theorizing of narrative time is somewhat lost. While narrative is central in the research design, applying multiple non-narrative theoretical perspectives brings into question whether it is methodologically narrative. Theoretical pluralism may thus de-centre narrative theorizing, in favor of using narrative in research design.

Discrete research approaches to the same data provide yet another insight into the ways that various methodologies may ironically limit the potential of theoretical multiplicity in making sense of narrative through time. In the special issue of Qualitative Research, different researchers apply discrete approaches to make sense of narrative stability and change in a set of case-studies from the Foley Longitudinal Study (Dunlop, 2019; Fivush et al., 2019; McLean et al., 2019; Pasupathi & Wainryb, 2019; Singer, 2019). Researchers and articles with separate approaches to the same sample produce discrete understandings of narratives over time based within participants. Indeed, categorizing narratives through stability and change provides a mechanism for coding narrative research from different theoretical stances (McAdams, 2019). However, these theoretical foundations remain implicit, and thus theoretical integration is minimized for the sake of multiplicity. While categorizing narrative through stability or change provides insights and mechanisms for coding narrative research, they may not be able to be explored as discrete units and may be incomparable and need different research mechanisms to make sense of their meaning (McLean et al., 2019, 2021). This discrete multiplicity makes it challenging to pinpoint the precise meaning of narrative stability and change through time (McAdams, 2019). While group sets of research may be useful, they also hold similar limitations as singular approaches, requiring deliberate theoretical integration in order to make sense of time in narrative.

Broadly speaking, empirical articles seldom communicated their theoretical grounding. Despite the wealth of theorizing on non-linear time in social sciences, there is a lack of dialogue in academia surrounding how that conceptualization of time can be applied to research (Sánchez-Mira & Bernardi, 2021). The inherently multidimensional and multitemporal nature of data emerging from repeat narrative interviews is difficult to analyze, lacks guidelines, and often leads to a-theoretical analysis, which then detracts from the possibilities of repeat interviewing to understand the fluidity of time (Calman et al., 2013). Unclear articulation of how theory addresses time in narrative research prompts novel theoretical applications that get applied to methods in order to step away from conceptualizing time as fixed (Balmer & Richards, 2021). Allowing theory to sit implicitly in methods produces findings that are unable to contribute to emerging understandings of narrative conceptualizations of time. In striving to expand on singular theoretical perspectives, narrative longitudinal research becomes entangled in complex theoretical pluralism that prevents straightforward communication and consistent application of theory in empirical work.

Considerations

This scoping review illustrates the tension between theorizing of narrative research and the practice of longitudinal narrative research. It is important to note, that while the authors took an eclectic approach in this review, it is possible that different methods for searching the literature may produce different conclusions on the state of literature on repeat narrative interviewing. This is particularly the case considering the scavenger hunt style search this research took. The use of terminology to describe narrative research was not consistent and so the article search was not exhaustive. Yet, using non-traditional search methods enabled more articles to be included in this review.

Similarly, the context and experiences of research and researchers within their fields of study is necessary for this review. Both authors have backgrounds in psychology, and differing levels of experience with research. Just as the authors’ academic experiences informed the language of the original search, other researchers may be able to provide different insights into search strategy based on their own contexts and disciplines. Articles in this review were predominantly categorized within health contexts, with journals spanning psychology, health, and nursing. Psychology, health, and nursing have a particular historical development to the incorporation of narrative approaches to research, which shapes the tensions between theory and practice that the authors have identified. Other disciplines have different histories, emphasize different aspects of narrative, and apply their research practice and theory for different social purposes. Future investigations can attend more to the inter-disciplinary contexts of theorizing time in research practice.

The subjectivity of the narrative created by this review is of methodological importance. While the first author re-visited articles at different points in time, the relationship to the articles is based on the authors context, experiences, and shaped by personal interests. These articles were re-visited over the course of a year, during which time both authors were engaged with many other projects with different theoretical grounding. Re-visiting articles and arguments parallels the research processes that narrative researchers engage with when analyzing multiple data re-configurations through time. The motives and intentions of the researchers likewise shift through all stages of a project, demonstrating the importance of attending to time in research processes beyond LNI.

While most of the studies in this scoping review conducted their interviews within a 10-year time frame, it may be of interest to further consider how longer periods of time might influence our understanding of change over time and time between. Even shorter periods of time may be significant in altering narrative accounts. Shifts such as that created by the #MeToo movement have challenged dominant narratives of sexual aggression as isolated and individual acts and made available counter-narratives of systemic sexual violence (Conrad, 2021). These processes enable re-configuring of how people can tell their stories (Turner, 2021) and may markedly alter whether life events are narrated and how their significance is framed. Yet further research is required to understand how conceptualizations of time interact with historical and sociocultural time. Researchers may wonder how significant historic events such as the COVID-19 pandemic shape the narratives of their participants, researchers, and research. In drawing on theorizing from larger-scale socio-cultural shifts and narrative, we can better examine the contexts of micro-level change.

Finally, through this review the authors have identified an opportunity to view time as both chronological and interpretative, however research rarely incorporates the two. Applying these ideas of time may have benefits for analysis and critique, yet systems of research practice struggle to incorporate both elements. By engaging with these complex considerations of time, LNI may continue to develop and to reveal complex and dynamic relationships. Stepping beyond the dichotomy of chronological and interpretative time from the onset can enable researchers to reflect more profoundly on relationships in the research, tread the path for creative ways of interpreting time in research, and challenge engrained beliefs about social reality.

Conclusion

Making sense of time presents complex and challenging circumstances for researchers. Repeat narrative interviews with the same participants present many opportunities for understanding the ways that stories help us make sense of lived experiences. Opportunities to conduct longitudinal narrative research are often embedded in studies whose aims and intentions do not align with theoretical work specific to understanding the complex role of time in narrative. The diversity of theoretical approaches used to make sense of narrative interviews conducted over time require researchers to make theoretical and analytic choices that do not always accommodate theoretically sophisticated understanding of time. The tension between theory and practice in longitudinal narrative research creates opportunities for advancing the methodological possibilities of social science. While theory and practice operate effectively in their own spheres, neither appears to be entirely exploiting the potential of longitudinal narrative research. Focusing attention on theoretical orientations to time within narrative approaches to repeated interview can enable a stronger analysis of time as it works through narratives, research, and researchers.