Narratology, Cultural Psychology, and Counseling Research

Lisa Tsoi HoshmandLesley University

Narratological research is defined in relation to narrative theory and a cultural psychology perspective.Narrative concepts and methodology are explained, including the configural mode of understanding andprinciples of narrative analysis. Examples of application in psychological and counseling research arepresented, with a discussion of issues of validity and voice. Suggestions are made on how narrativestudies are to be evaluated. It is concluded that narratological research, with its focus on meanings andthe storied nature of human life, can be especially useful in discovery research on identity developmentand the experience of counseling and life transitions.

This article addresses the narrative paradigm for research, witha focus on narratology, narrative theory, and cultural psychology.In view of the fact that most qualitative research involves thecollection and analysis of narrative data, the term narratology isused here to distinguish inquiry approaches that are informed bynarrative theory and cultural psychology from other forms ofqualitative research presented in this special issue. Granted thatthere are similarities between the various qualitative research par-adigms, with a general philosophical preference for a social con-structionist view of knowledge, qualitative inquiry can be largelyinductive and not necessarily guided by narrative theory. Narrativeinquiry, however, can be regarded as being on a continuum withthe type of knowing involved in counseling practice when welisten for meanings and patterns in what clients say about them-selves and their lives.

One of the goals of this article was to explicate narrative theoryand to locate it in the perspective of cultural psychology. Anotherwas to discuss the implications of narrative theory and narratologyfor domains relevant to counseling. It should be stated at the outsetthat there is no unified narrative theory, but rather narrative con-cepts and principles that can be applied when conducting qualita-tive research. In exploring the possibilities of a narrative frame-work for the human sciences and its potential value in counselingresearch, it is recognized that narratological approaches to psycho-logical research are still evolving. Narratological inquiry is in needof further definition under shared philosophical assumptions andcommunal standards. As I explain subsequently, narrative perspec-tives entail particular ontological assumptions about the nature ofnarrative accounts and human discourse in context. Being a qual-itative methodology, it should not be expected to reflect the levelof standardization as in experimental research.

I begin here with the multidisciplinary literature on narrativestudy, as it offers definitions of a narrative, narrative concepts, andperspectives on interpretive validity and other issues in narrativeinquiry.

The History of Narratology and Narrative Theory

Narratology is a term historically used to refer to the study ofnarratives in the literary field, though other disciplines in thehumanities (such as history) and the social sciences (such ascultural studies) also are associated with the study of narratives.The term narratology is used here as a way of distinguishing amode of qualitative inquiry and data analysis that is informed bynarrative theory, set apart from other qualitative research thatinvolves narrative data but not a narrative perspective per se.

The history of narratology and narratological analysis can befound in sources such as Prince (1997) and D. Herman (1999).Theorizing on narratives has evolved from classical poetics to thepostclassical, and from structural to more contextualist and func-tional models in the poststructual and postmodern period (Gibson,1996). Narrative theories have addressed fictional narratives inliterary studies as well as historical, sociological, and culturalanalyses of narratives, extending to cyberage narratology. Eachperiod of narrative theorizing has been modified by ideologicaland theoretical critique, as in the case of the influence of feministnarratology (Mezei, 1996). The various theoretical models devel-oped over time coexist in spite of philosophical shifts in paradigmsof knowledge and changes in the actual landscape of scholarlyinquiry (Richardson, 2000).

The narrative theorists and philosophers who have shaped nar-ratological inquiry are too numerous to reference exhaustivelyhere. Of particular interest are Foucault (1971), who approachednarrative as a social, cultural, and political practice; Ricoeur(1984–1989), who emphasized the temporal nature of humanexistence as lived and illuminated in narrative coherence; Bakhtin(1984), who introduced the concept of multiple voices in the formof polyphonic text; MacIntyre (1981), who argued for narrative asthe primary structure for identity and human action; and Gadamer(1994), who offered the concept of interpretive horizons in con-junction with a dialogical process of narrative understanding.These theorists have influenced narrative work across the disci-plines—in terms of narrative perspectivity (L. Herman, 2003;Nunning, 2001; Stanzel, 1988; van Peer & Chatman, 2001) and theunderstanding of narratological stances (Dixon & Bortolussi,2001), as well as the critical analysis of discourse as a form ofsocial practice (Scheuer, 2003). With the narrative turn in philos-ophy and the emergence of interpretive social science (Clifford &

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lisa TsoiHoshmand, Division of Counseling and Psychology, Lesley University, 29Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. E-mail: lhoshman@lesley.edu

Journal of Counseling Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association2005, Vol. 52, No. 2, 178–186 0022-0167/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.178

178

Marcus, 1986; Geertz, 1990; Rabinow & Sullivan, 1987), theoret-ical perspectives on narrative have impacted psychology and thehuman sciences (Hoshmand, 2000; Polkinghorne, 1988). Beforedescribing narrative influence in the field of psychology and theareas of counseling and psychotherapy, the conceptual issues intheorizing about narratives should be identified.

Conceptual Issues and Definition of Narrative

The most fundamental issue in narrative theory and researchconcerns the definition of a narrative. Few narrative theorists havebeen satisfied with the minimalist definition that regards any set ofutterances or segment of written text as narrative. Most narrativetheories require a temporal and/or causal coherence in the meaningstructure of a narrative (Richardson, 2000). The narrated textshould be sequentially connected in time or cohere in terms ofantecedents and outcomes. The concept of narrative smoothingfurther acknowledges that narrative construction often involvescondensation and omission so as to provide some degree of closureand wholeness to a given text (Cortazzi, 1993; Spence, 1986).Under the influence of the social constructionist perspective, manyhave moved from representational views of narrative to moretransactional views, leading to the conceptual category of narrativeaccounts. As I explain subsequently, there are unique ontologicalassumptions involved in treating narratives as self-accounts, dia-logically constituted accounts, and reconstructed accounts. An-other way of distinguishing types of narratives is by levels, fromnarratives as pure text without stories to complex, embeddednarratives with protagonists and plots in particular historical timeand space (Nelles, 1997).

Whereas narrative theories had previously focused on the lin-guistic and structural characteristics of narrated text (such asrhetorical devices and form), there has been increased interest inthe meanings and relationships found in narratives (such as mo-tives and plots), as well as the social, historical, and culturalcontexts of narratives. The shift from structural to more functionaland contextualist models favors social and cultural embeddednessas a defining characteristic of narrative accounts. In those cases inwhich narratives are conceptualized in terms of discourse andintentional storytelling in social and cultural contexts, issues ofauthority, voice, and positionality arise. The authorial voice of thenarrator has received much attention in the study of fiction untilreception theory, and more transactional formulations call atten-tion to the audience who participates in making sense of thenarrative text. In this respect, narrative research may be consideredinherently dialogical, with the author in dialogue with the audi-ence. The concept of polyphonic texts further suggests that narra-tive accounts should be treated as multivocal, as there could bemore than one voice in a given text.

Who has interpretive authority over a text, however, has impli-cations for understanding and validating knowledge on the basis ofthe study of narratives. Under postmodernism, narrative expres-sion is understood to involve diverse voices with social and polit-ical import; thus, positionality becomes an important considerationin narrative interpretation. Researchers are expected to account fortheir own perspectivity in the process of interpreting the meaningsof a narrative that potentially can be understood from a multiplicityof perspectives and positions that are social, theoretical, and ideo-

logical in nature. These considerations, which are appropriate alsoin other qualitative research, are fundamental to narrative research.

Validity and Knowledge Claims in Narrative Research

Issues of validity and knowledge claims in narrative study havereceived considerable attention. Spence’s (1984) distinction be-tween historical truth and narrative truth has moved narrativeunderstanding from the Freudian archaeological mode of recon-structing the past to a construction of meanings that does notnecessarily have a referential basis. This view of narrative truthcan be formulated in terms of pragmatic validity, in the sense thatan interpretation has truth value if the parties involved regard it asuseful. In spite of the philosophically problematic implication thathistorical truth can be somehow outside of language and thenarrativization of experience—a criticism of Spence by Sass andWoolfolk (1988) for misunderstanding hermeneutics and main-taining objectivist assumptions—the concept of narrative truth hasheld its appeal.

Constructivist views and narrative conceptions of identity (Ger-gen & Davis, 1985; Shotter & Gergen, 1989) further imply adialogical form of validity, whereby intersubjectivity in the cocon-struction of meanings is key. Constructivist and dialogical per-spectives in narrative theorizing have appealed to the counselingand psychotherapeutic fields because of alignment with relationaltheories of therapeutic practice and cultural views of identitydevelopment. Nonetheless, counseling and clinical phenomena associal construction (McNamee & Gergen, 1992; Neimeyer &Raskin, 2000) coexist in professional understanding and practicewith clinical inquiry and intervention that subscribe to objectivistnotions of historical truth. These philosophical differences in thefield are important to keep in mind because questions of validityand how knowledge claims are to be supported in narrative inquirydepend on the philosophical positions of researchers and reviewers(see Morrow, 2005).

Narrative inquiry involves decisions that are both philosophicaland methodological in nature. Whose narrative truth to privilege,what one makes of narrative smoothing in human dialogue, andhow subjectivity becomes foregrounded are some of the proce-dural choices involved. Such choices affect the understanding onewill achieve in a given narrative analysis. A radical constructivistepistemology that implies limitless meaning-making and interpre-tations is problematic for those who prefer a pragmatic or dialec-tical form of validity in dealing with narratives. Pragmatic validityis concerned with the purpose and effects of narrative accounts astested in application. Dialectical forms of validity also acknowl-edge the point the narrator is trying to make to the other or oneselfbut grants a reciprocal consideration of figure-and-ground andself-and-other in the comprehension of meaning. Contrary to theontological assumptions of radical constructivism, interpretation isnot arbitrary or unrestricted by social, cultural, or political context.

Hermeneutic approaches to psychology can inform our thinkingabout validity issues with narrative inquiry (Polkinghorne, 2000).The narrative understanding of human experience and its textualrepresentation involves a part-to-whole process, referred to as ahermeneutic circle (Heidegger, 1962). The interpreting agent re-vises such understanding against a cultural context and changingbackground of knowledge that is both cognitive and affective.Polkinghorne (2000) suggested that the pragmatist and hermeneu-

179SPECIAL ISSUE: NARRATOLOGY

tic traditions allow for one to expand on one’s socially and cul-turally internalized understanding about self, other, and the worldthrough experience and participation in inquiry (p. 465). He furthercited Gadamer’s (1994) philosophical hermeneutics in support of adialogical process of narrative understanding in which the aware-ness of incomplete background understanding opens us to engage-ment with the other. The hope of such engagement is to achieveshared cultural horizons that can serve as improved interpretivehorizons. Viewed from this hermeneutic and cultural perspective,human understanding is always partial, and the validity of knowl-edge claims can only be contingent. Dialogical and pragmaticforms of validity applied to narratives should be premised on thishermeneutic conception of partial and contingent knowledge. Rec-ognizing that the criteria for supporting narrative truth claimsrequire continuing development, I examine their methodologicalimplications later.

Narrative principles and concepts, for the most part, serve asinterpretive guides rather than as “theory” in the conventionalsense. Nonetheless, there have been attempts to empirically vali-date certain narrative concepts and to empirically study conceptsrelated to narrative interpretation. For example, Russell, van denBroek, Adams, Rosenberger, and Essig (1993) conducted an em-pirical analysis of narratives in psychotherapy, measuring temporaland structural coherence, the therapist’s attunement to subjectivity,and the client’s narrative competence. Dixon and Bortolussi (2001)conducted empirical study of cultural schema to evaluate culturaltheories of discourse processing. L. Herman (2003) cited empiricalresearch that suggests that there is a limit to which readers’perspectives are subject to rhetorical manipulation. These studiesof the basic tenets of narrative theory have not necessarily keptpace with the popular use of narrative theories or the particulartheorizing based on narrative conceptions of identity, culturaldiscourse, and human action. Most of the empirical research onnarrative and discourse processing has been conducted in thesocial sciences. Only more recently have narrative theorists in thehumanities collaborated with social scientists in developing, forexample, the new field of psychonarratology (L. Herman, 2003;van Peer & Chatman, 2001). I next locate narratology in psychol-ogy and the human sciences.

Narratology, Cultural Psychology, and the InterpretiveHuman Sciences

Interest in the narrative perspective in psychology was associ-ated previously with personological case studies and developmen-tal theories on the basis of life history (Erikson, 1962, 1969;Murray, 1938; Runyun, 1983). Examples of more recent narrativetheorizing in our field have included Sarbin’s (1986) storied natureof human conduct, Howard’s (1991) culture tales, Mair’s (1988)psychological understanding as storytelling, Polkinghorne’s(1988) review of narrative knowing in the human sciences, Her-mans’s (2004) work on the dialogical self, and McAdams’s (1993)concept of identity as storied accounts. Additional developmentshave been extended to theory, research, and practice in psycho-therapy and counseling, such as those presented in Angus andMcLeod (2004). These developments can be linked to the broaderdevelopment of cultural psychology as a meta-framework for aninterpretive human science (Hoshmand, 1996). Cultural psychol-ogy (Cole, 1996; Shweder, 1991) involves a contextual, nonreduc-

tionistic approach to understanding the human realm. It viewssubject and object, self and other, and psyche and culture asdialectically coconstituted.

Bruner (1986, 1990), who distinguished narrative knowing fromthe logico-scientific knowing associated with traditional researchparadigms, is generally recognized as having provided psychologywith a cultural, narrative view. This view, which has enrichedtheory and research in cognitive psychology, assumes that humanexperience is narrativized in the sense that lived experience, whenrecounted, involves temporal and causal coherence. People appro-priate story-form meaning-making from the repertoire of narra-tives available in their cultural world, including myths and sym-bols (Campbell, 1988; May, 1975). Developmentally, humanslearn to use and understand narrative meanings from an early age.A certain level of narrative competence is assumed of all humansas cultural beings. Such a view is also consistent with the concep-tion of narrative accounts as forms of social practice mediated byculture and history. As theorized by the philosophers MacIntyre(1981) and Ricoeur (1984–1989), humans as moral agents live bythe stories constructed of self and other in society, acting withintentions informed by the beliefs and values of cultural living.Taylor’s (1989) theory of identity, premised on the notion of asocially negotiated moral self, also implies processes of culturalappropriation. The culturally constituted dialogical self and inten-tionality in human actions can therefore be understood from per-sonal narrative accounts (Hermans, 2004; Kerby, 1991; McAdams,1993), just as groups and communities can be understood fromtheir shared stories (Rappaport, 1995).

Cultural psychology and the narrative frameworks developed inour field have supported research in psychobiography and thestudy of lives (Josselson & Lieblich, 1993, 1995; Lieblich &Josselson, 1994; McAdams, Josselson, & Lieblich, 2001; Runyun,1996). They have also stimulated research and theorizing on self-hood and identity (Hermans, 2004; Hoshmand, 1998; McAdams &Janis, 2004; Polkinghorne, 1991), including extensions to thecounseling and therapeutic context (White, 2004; White & Epston,1990). Story as the root metaphor for human life and the appro-priation of culture in the development of identity have captured theimagination of many in the last two decades. Concepts such asemplotment, previously applied to the study of fiction, are nowapplied to the study of narrative accounts of self (Bruner, 2004).The ontological assumption of a more or less coherent narrativeidentity seems to be accepted by theorists and practitioners alike.Narrative researchers, as do counseling practitioners, look for plotsin what people say about themselves and their lives, treatingnarrative constructions as storied accounts. This attention to plot-like configuration and thematic meanings, referred to as a narra-tive mode of understanding, is sometimes also found in other formsof qualitative research.

Further assumptions about the unique nature of self-narrativesare their social-constructivist and self-presentational quality. Thiswas borne out by Gerhardt and Stinson (1994) in the study ofself-accounts given during therapeutic discourse. Additionally,Hermans (2004) reported research on the multiplicity of selfhoodthat parallels the multivocal nature of narratives. Cultural mean-ings are understood as malleable and subject to change, just ascultural identities and boundaries are considered dynamicallymoving phenomena. These conceptual developments are importantto keep in mind as one examines the methodology of narrative

180 HOSHMAND

inquiry. In conceptualizing discourse as social practice Scheuer(2003) depicted the social agent as creative yet socially deter-mined. The possibility of both freedom and constraint is given ina cultural view of human existence. The versatility of narrative andits capaciousness as a story-form (Silber, 2004) owes much to ourown capacity for cultural creativity. A narrative theory for thehuman sciences is appropriately informed by cultural psychology.

The implications of cultural psychology are not only theoreticalbut also of a paradigmatic nature. Bruner (1986) introduced thenotion of a narrative mode of knowing that is connected withnarrative inquiry as an epistemological approach. The distinctionBruner made between reductionistic, hypothetico-deductive, orparadigmatic knowing and the more holistic, metaphorical narra-tive knowing has enabled us to broadly distinguish between theways of knowing associated with traditional philosophy of scienceand those associated with the new philosophy of science. Ourprevalent research methodology that involves hypothetico-deductive reasoning, and testing of theories with the aim of pro-viding explanations of human behavior, reflects what Bruner re-gards as paradigmatic knowing. Descriptive and discovery-oriented research involving configural patterns of interpretationand a part-to-whole logic of argumentation reflects a narrativemode of understanding. However, D. E. Polkinghorne (personalcommunication, 2004) suggested that qualitative research some-times has involved both paradigmatic and narrative modes ofinquiry, and that the latter should be more clearly reflected in whatis identified as narrative research. This point has implications forthe criteria for narrative research and the characterization of itsmethodology.

Narratological Methodology in Qualitative Research

Methodology includes not only procedural guidelines in re-search practice but also the conceptual and epistemological orien-tation and reasoning brought by the researcher to the inquiryprocess. Given its constructionist orientation to knowledge and thetheoretical and ontological assumptions involved in the narrativeperspective, the following methodological implications can bestated. First of all, narrative research would involve inquiry di-rected at narrativized human experience or inquiry that results innarrative forms of data. Qualitative interviews soliciting storiesand oral histories, or written autobiographies and biographies, mayyield data for narrative research. The data are viewed from thestandpoint of narrative theory in terms of what constitutes anarrative and how the narrative is to be interpreted. Mishler (1990,1995) emphasized both the structural criterion of textual coherenceand the cultural-sociopsychological contexts and functions of nar-ratives when using narrative-analytic strategies in research.

Polkinghorne (1994, 1995) defined narrative research as a sub-set of qualitative research that involves configural story-formconstruction of a narrative set. In his view, the original researchdata do not have to be narrativized data in order for narrativeinquiry to be performed. In other words, a biographical researchercan construct a story about a person’s life from chronological dataas well as other kinds of observational data that are not presentedin story form. However, Polkinghorne’s requirement is that theresearcher must use a narrative mode of interpretation with apart-to-whole logic and that the analysis should yield a storiedaccount as a product (Polkinghorne, 1997). Inductive content

analysis of narrative data that are often used in qualitative research,and the paradigmatic mode of interpretation brought to bear onnarrative data such as in the theorizing stage of grounded theoryinquiry, would not qualify as narrative research. This rather re-strictive definition of narrative research has its pros and cons. Itsmerit is in calling attention to the difference between a narrativemode of understanding and a paradigmatic mode of theory prob-ing. Its possible limitation is in depriving researchers of the con-ceptual benefits of a narrative perspective, who may or may notproduce a story-form interpretive account as the outcome of theirqualitative research.

In searching for exemplars of narrative study, using Polking-horne’s definition, a mixed picture emerges. Even with examplesfrom the Journal of Narrative and Life History, it is not easy todetermine whether a narrative research report represents a “sto-ried” account as the research product. If one were to examinestudies reported in the three volumes of the Narrative Study ofLives (Josselson & Lieblich, 1993, 1995; Lieblich & Josselson,1994), the degree of “story-likeness” in the final reporting alsovaries. The judgment of whether a research report qualifies as anarrative research report hinges on how one defines a story-formnarrative.

It appears that at least three types of report may qualify: (a) adescriptive report of a privately constructed self-account in itsoriginal narrated form; (b) a recounting of a dialogically generatednarrative or set of narratives in a story form; and (c) a storiedaccount of an experience constructed from interviews, writtenreports, observations, and artifacts. The first, such as an autobiog-raphy, meets the ontological requirement of being a storying ofself, presumably to an imagined or intended audience. The second,such as narrative of a life experience obtained with interviewing,meets the ontological requirement of being a dialogically con-structed account. The third, such as a biographical study, mayshare some of the features of the first two types in addition to beingconstructed as a storied account. Whether narrative research canmeet these criteria may require further consideration. For example,in Hoshmand (1998), a summary account of professional identity,creativity, and moral vision was constructed on the basis of auto-biographical sketches provided by a group of psychologists, inaddition to interview data and documents of their life work thatwere validated by the informants themselves. The interpretationand discussion were thematically driven, and the final presentationwas not intentionally story-like. However, the study was verymuch informed by a narrative, cultural psychology perspective onidentity and moral agency, a perspective that is proposed here asessential to narratological research. The summary account aboutthe communal nature of the creativity and moral commitment ofthese individuals included a certain degree of recounting of theself-accounts provided by these social actors as agents and pro-tagonists in their own identity projects. It has coherence as anarrative, contextualist, temporal-causal mode of understandingwas applied. There was reflexive attention to issues of perspectiveand voice, an opportunity for the participants to write postscripts tothe summary analysis, and an invitation for potential readers tocritique the interpretive horizons with which the summary accountwas constructed. As the researcher involved, I am not certain thatmy account meets the requirements of a story in the sense intendedby Polkinghorne. My hope is that it would count for a theoretical

181SPECIAL ISSUE: NARRATOLOGY

story of practical ethics at work in the engendering of professionalselves.

Polkinghorne (1997) cited Golden’s (1976) study of research-ers’ experience as a good example of narrative research. Thepersonal journals of the researchers, appended to their projectdescriptions in this case, provide a picture of the research experi-ence that includes the unplanned and the overlooked. It may beinstructive to compare the Golden study with the study of theinquiry process, intentions, and values of programmatic research-ers in therapeutic psychology by Hoshmand and Martin (1995). Inthe latter case, we had accounts written by the researchers of theirknowledge interests, intentions, and decisions throughout the in-quiry process. From these accounts, an analysis was made and asummary account written about the applied epistemology of coun-seling research. The final account was issues oriented and thematicin its analysis. This project was framed in terms of a pragmatistunderstanding of researchers’ inquiry process and not conceivedwith a narrative perspective, as in the case of the Hoshmand (1998)project. The chapters written by the researchers vary in terms ofstory-likeness, with personal reflections not separated from thedescription of their work, such as in the case of Golden (1976).This comparison between the two projects may help to illustratethe extent to which a study qualifies as narrative research andwhether a narratological methodology was followed.

Narratological methodology can be used in combination withother qualitative approaches or a quantitative approach. Polking-horne (1997) cited the work of Moustakas (1961), in a qualitativeinquiry into existential loneliness, as an example of narrativeresearch. Here, first-person accounts of the experience of loneli-ness were presented. Moustakas did not explain the methodologyhe followed, but he appeared to have been more guided by aphenomenological-existential perspective rather than by narrativetheory. In addition to providing interpretive statements that help toilluminate the meaning and essence of loneliness in a phenome-nological sense, he also told a parallel story of his own experienceof loneliness and how he found resolution by studying others’experience that increased his understanding of the existential im-plications of loneliness. In this case, a narrative mode of under-standing was used with a phenomenological approach. The estheticappeal of these compelling and beautifully narrated accounts qual-ifies this work as a narratological accomplishment. In anotherstudy of loneliness, Wiseman (1995) combined phenomenologicalinquiry into the process of loneliness with the measurement ofloneliness, using narratives from interviews. He presented thefindings in the form of a reconstructed “story of the loner.” Thisreport, published in one of the collections in the narrative study oflives, was not entirely in story-form. It illustrates the simultaneoususe of paradigmatic and narrative modes of reasoning.

Unlike experimental research with standard procedural guide-lines and operational clarity, narratological inquiry can be under-stood more in terms of certain principles of analysis and interpre-tive templates that are not uniformly applied in a codified fashion.Biographical studies such as those by Rosenwald and Ochberg(1992), Runyun (1996), and Habermas and Bluck (2000), as aspecial category of narratological research, follow the methodolog-ical principle of selectivity. Rosenthal (1993) explained that inreconstructing a narrated life story, such as with the help ofinteractive interviews, the narrator and the biographer make selec-tions on the basis of sequentiality. Selection of action sequences

from reported activities takes into account the range of possibilitiesand the decision to eliminate certain possibilities as opposed toothers. In constructing the meaning of a text following the se-quence of events reported, the biographer generates hypothesesabout the possibilities and further developments. Rosenthal con-ceived of each action sequence as being embedded in a thematicfield of analysis. While the biographer is carried by the narrativeflow in the storytelling, each text sequence is interpreted forrelevance in the context of the overall construction of the mainnarration. Thus, in addition to the thematic hypotheses, a part-to-whole configuration is involved in a holistic rather than reduction-istic or linear analysis. Most life-story accounts also involve psy-chic or social conflict and its resolution as an organizing principle.McAdams and Bowman (2001) offered the additional concepts ofredemption and contamination; a redemption sequence being amovement from negative to positive outcome, and a contaminationsequence moving from good to bad. Different types of plots basedon the goal attainment of the protagonist can be used as theorganizing template in narrative analysis (McAdams, 1993; Polk-inghorne, 1994). As stated previously, what informs the reasoningof the researcher in the interpretive process is very much part ofthe methodology. Such transparency should be a criterion in eval-uating reports on this type of research.

Intelligibility in the narrativization and recounting of life expe-rience is a general methodological requirement for a credible story,and therefore another important criterion in evaluating narratologi-cal research. The configural logic of narratological research can becombined with a metaphorical rather than inductive-thematic-theory-generating approach. Modell (1992) reported an analysis ofnarratives from birthparents who gave away their babies, in whichthe metaphor of coercion was used as a rhetorical device to giveintelligibility to the narrative accounts as stories about inconsis-tencies in concepts of parenthood in American society. The storyof giving up and becoming a childless parent was given not onlystructure by the metaphor of coercion in the reconstruction but alsointelligibility in this case. This metaphorical mode of interpretationand reconstruction, sometimes found in other qualitative researchapproaches as well, does not follow a hypothesis-testing way ofinterrogating the data. Rather, metaphors can serve to organize astory and persuade the reader of its broader cultural implications.Intelligibility in narratives is a function of what is culturally given.In other words, certain story lines make sense in light of largercultural scripts and background understandings. Stories are easierto follow when the narrator deploys local rules of discourse, whichpoints to the challenge of cross-cultural narrative research. Thesense of what counts as a well-formed and credible story has to beshared by the researcher as interlocutor with the audience. Narra-tological research is dialogical in the sense that the knowledge itgenerates is dependent on the background of shared understand-ings and meanings.

A special methodological note should be made of the personaleffects of undertaking narrative inquiry on the researcher. Reinharz(1994) described how working with feminist biography bringsforth identification with other women’s lives and their struggles,the need to confront anger, the joy of discovering the subject, andthe reflective experience of empathy and succor. As with otherforms of qualitative research, narratological inquiry can be ex-pected to transform the engaged researcher. A story would not bea story if not for the effect that it has. Reviewers of narratological

182 HOSHMAND

research also will judge the researcher’s interpretive account interms of how compelling it is.

Given the multiple ways of defining narrative research and thepresent state of narratological practice, it is probably best toconsider narrative theory and narratological concepts as method-ological principles rather than as a codified methodology. In ex-ploring further applications of narratology in areas of inquiryrelevant to counseling, the issues and challenges of narratologicalresearch are addressed.

Applications of Narratology: Issues and Challenges

The previous examples given illustrate some of the areas ofapplication and types of research questions involved. Because ofthe ontological assumptions of a culturally informed, narrativeperspective, narrative inquiry is especially suited for research incertain substantive domains. Narrative theory takes into accountthe uniqueness of individual life and experience. Narratologicalresearch is well suited for the study of lives and narrativizedexperience and meanings. Examples include studies of identity andtherapeutic experience in which a dialogical construction of self-referential and social meanings is involved. Gender identity, suchas that explored in Lieblich and Josselson (1994), can be a con-tinuing area of inquiry in counseling research. Theory and researchon cultural identity development in the counseling field, whichhave been driven by paradigmatic modes of research, can becomplemented and enhanced by narrative theory and narratologi-cal research. The fact that narratological inquiry is more sensitiveto the contextual richness and uniqueness of the subject can help usto understand the individual case in ways that are not possible withnomothetically derived stage theories of identity development. Forexample, Gresson (1992) illustrated the usefulness of Black femalenarratives in understanding the contradictions and ambivalenceexperienced by African Americans. Similarly, narratological re-search can contribute to current understanding of bicultural andbiracial identities.

A specific topic of identity development is professional devel-opment. Skovholt and Ronnestad (1995) presented themes fromthe study of counselor development for our understanding of theevolving professional self. Such research can be undertaken in aneven more narratological mode by providing stories and story-form interpretation of the experience of professional development.Malain (2001), for example, reported counseling students’ devel-opment of cultural competency. This type of research can bedeveloped holistically into a more comprehensive narratologicalstudy that includes the changing intentionality of the students asthey develop themselves as culturally competent practitioners.

The counseling field has benefited from an increased use ofqualitative and multimethod approaches to research on the processand experience of counseling and psychotherapy. Researchers canfind in narratological inquiry a philosophical and methodologicalcongruence with their ontological assumptions and relationalmodes of understanding. Angus, Lewin, Bouffard, and Rotondi-Trevisan (2004) reported the use of client stories of their autobio-graphical memories in therapeutic understanding, and in trackingthe narrative sequences in experiential psychotherapy. The rela-tionship between narrative processes and emotional meaning-making represents a fertile area of inquiry for counseling research-ers. Botella, Herrero, Pacheco, and Corbella (2004) posed a

number of questions concerning the relational contexts in whichclients construe meanings in particular ways, and how a relational,constructivist approach can foster meaningful transformations inclients’ narratives of identity. A narratological research approachmay enable us to understand contextually and culturally themeaning-making processes and developmental changes in narra-tive identity as a function of counseling.

Another area that has been a traditional research domain forcounseling is career development. Clark, Carlson, and Polking-horne (1997) illustrated the usefulness of life history and narrativeapproaches in the study of occupation. Similar to the study ofcultural identity development, narratological research can comple-ment stage theories of career development and occupationalchoice. Occupational identity and career choices, as illustrated byRoberts and Rosenwald (2001), represent one aspect of the narra-tive study of life transitions (McAdams et al., 2001). Counselingencounters being occasioned often by life transitions, much can belearned by using a narrative approach to understanding such tran-sitions. An area that can be of interest to counseling researchers isthe study of grief and experiences of loss. Gilbert (2002) describedthe use of narrative research in death studies with a focus onmeaning. The broader area of trauma studies also can be ap-proached with narratological research. Narrative case study hasbeen used to research, for example, marital violence (Riessman,1992), combat trauma (Shay, 1994), and families of survivors ofthe Holocaust (Bar-On & Gilad, 1994).

It is not possible to identify all the topic areas in counselingresearch that can incorporate a narratological approach. Narrativematerial lends itself to teaching because students can identify withstories. The popular appeal of narratives tends to create the im-pression that there is value in simply presenting a collection ofpersonal narratives. An example is the casebook of personal nar-ratives in the helping professions by Herior and Polinger (2002).Though grouped by life context and accompanying questions fordiscussion, there is no analysis of the narratives presented. Re-searchers need to keep in mind that the usefulness of narratives asdata depends critically on the conceptual perspective in whichnarrative inquiry is framed and in the use of a narratologicalmethodology that is made transparent to the reader. Such consid-erations are concerned with issues of quality and trustworthinesssuch as those discussed by Morrow (2005). Mishler (1990) ex-plained the proper use of exemplars in narrative research and howvalidation or trustworthiness needs to be achieved by displayingthe primary text and specifying the analytic strategies and inter-pretations involved. As explained earlier, there are various types ofvalidity pertaining to narrative research. Researchers should beclear about the kind of validity that is claimed.

There are generic issues and particular challenges in narrato-logical research. Gilbert (2002) provided an excellent discussion ofthe roles of researcher and participant and the ethics involved innarrative research. Most researchers rely on their common-senseunderstanding of narrative grammar and cultural meanings whenextracting a narrative from discourse, and in constructing a coher-ent account from the telling of a story. Counseling researchers, asis also true for counseling practitioners, face the challenge ofdiscerning the deep meaning structure as opposed to the surfacestructure of narratives. It is meaning that allows the interpreter toachieve a coherent narrativization in the retelling and comprehen-sion of a story. Because so much of narrative understanding

183SPECIAL ISSUE: NARRATOLOGY

belongs with tacit knowing (Polanyi, 1962), it may be difficult toexplain the interpretive process with the kind of operational clarityexpected of reductionistic, paradigmatic research.

Mishler (1995) proposed several rules of selection and exclu-sion, citing Labov’s (1982) observation that narrative coherence isnot established reductionistically at the level of sentences, but atthe more abstract meaning level of speech acts and actions. Heattempted a schematic representation of the process of interpretivereconstruction. Whether this systematic explication of the narrativemode of interpretation and recounting would become standardpractice may depend on further research on narrative processingand the development of narrative measures and linguistic markerssuch as those attempted by Russell et al. (1993) and Gerhardt andStinson (1994).

Serving as an author in recounting the lives of others requires acritical reflexivity and sense of humility (Geertz, 1990). It isimportant to avoid being patronizing when giving voice to thevoiceless and to be sensitive to the asymmetrical power in theresearcher–participant relationship noted by Polkinghorne (2005).Fine (1992) further cautioned against romanticizing the voices andexperiences of the subject, a challenge that is especially true fornarrative research aimed at giving voice to marginalized groupssuch as women and minorities. She also pointed to the social costsof desilencing in the case of oppressed women who have loyaltiesto their subcultures. Coming from a critical discourse perspective,Scheuer (2003) discussed the need to balance political interpreta-tion with contextual, linguistic, and sociohistorical analysis. Whendescription ends and ideological rhetoric begins is a judgment call.

Lincoln (1997) discussed the choices involved in the socialconstruction of self and other. If texts are considered partial andhistorically and culturally situated as well as highly gendered, itmay not be possible to represent the multiple understandings or“tell the whole story” (p. 38). Depending on the researcher’s ownidentity and intentions, a particular identity or voice may berepresented. Such choices depend on the purpose of the study, theaudience we want to address, the interaction between participant-selves and author-selves, and the praxis of interpretive communi-ties. Whether a study is intended to prompt public debate orinfluence public policy and social action would guide the tone andemphasis of the narrative construction. Finding the appropriatevoice in texts that are conceived as polyphonic has methodologicalimplications. Shared decision making with participants is just asnecessary as validating interpretations with them. Reflective rolemanagement in participant research applies here in terms of beingable to produce a balanced account. Again, these considerationsare relevant to issues of trustworthiness and quality when evalu-ating this type of research.

McAdams and Janis (2004) acknowledged the moral issuesinvolved in privileging one type of cultural text over another andof the need to avoid arbitrariness in deciding on the types ofidentity enabled by a narrative construction. Narrative research isvalue imbued because cultural texts are associated with particularmoral perspectives (MacIntyre, 1981; Taylor, 1989). The risks ofmisinterpretation are high when conducting narrative research withthe culturally unfamiliar, and when different habits of discourseare involved. Coles (1977) described the difficulties in developingintersubjectivity with Hopi families and children, and of the vul-nerability experienced by the researcher while participating inthese life stories. Language can illuminate or conceal narrative

realities that have personal and political implications. It seems thata critical form of researcher reflexivity based on the hermeneuticview discussed earlier is especially important in narrative research.Researchers must be aware of the interpretive horizons involvedand be capable of constantly improving on the background under-standings that permit a given interpretation in context.

Conclusion

Narratological research is informed by narrative theory and theperspective of cultural psychology. It involves a narrative mode ofunderstanding human experience and narrative forms of qualitativeresearch data gathered from interviews, biographical and autobio-graphical sources, as well as cultural artifacts and observationaldata. A configural, part-to-whole logic of interpretation and argu-mentation is followed. In some cases, the research report is pre-sented in a story-form, and in other cases framed thematicallywithin a theory-generating project. It can be used in combinationwith another theoretical perspective, such as the phenomenologicalperspective, or with a different methodology such as paradigmaticresearch. Narrative researchers should explain in what sense theyare following a narratological approach. Because of the ontologicaland epistemological implications of a narratological approach, it isparticularly suited for a number of areas of inquiry relevant tocounseling psychology. Narratological research, with its focus onmeaning making and a narrative mode of understanding, can beconducted on cultural and gender identity, counseling process,professional and career development, as well as particular types oflife experience and life transitions. Its contributions tend to be indiscovery research and in complementing other forms of inquiryby illuminating meanings and narrativized human experience.

References

Angus, L. E., Lewin, J., Bouffard, B., & Rotondi-Trevisan, D. (2004).“What’s the story?” Working with narrative in experiential psychother-apy. In L. Angus & J. McLeod (Eds.), The handbook of narrative andpsychotherapy: Practice, theory, and research (pp. 87–101). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Angus, L., & McLeod, J. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of narrative andpsychotherapy: Practice, theory, and research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Doestoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson,Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original workpublished 1970)

Bar-On, S., & Gilad, N. (1994). To rebuild life: A narrative analysis ofthree generations of an Israeli Holocaust survivor’s family. In A. Lie-blich & R. Josselson (Eds.), Exploring identity and gender: The narra-tive study of lives (Vol. 2., pp. 83–112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Botella, L., Herrero, O., Pacheco, M., & Corbella, S. (2004). Working withnarrative in psychotherapy: A relational constructivist approach. In L.Angus & J. McLeod (Eds.), The handbook of narrative and psychother-apy: Practice, theory, and research (pp. 119–136). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Bruner, J. (2004). The narrative creation of self. In L. Angus & J. McLeod(Eds.), The handbook of narrative and psychotherapy: Practice, theory,and research (pp. 3–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Campbell, J. (1988). The power of myths. New York: Doubleday.

184 HOSHMAND

Clark, F., Carlson, M., & Polkinghorne, D. E. (1997). The legitimacy oflife history and narrative approaches in the study of occupation. TheAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51, 313–317.

Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poeticsand politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Coles, R. (1977). Children of crisis. Vol. IV. Eskimos, Chicanos, Indians.Boston: Little, Brown.

Cortazzi, M. (1993). Narrative analysis. London: Falmer.Dixon, P., & Bortolussi, M. (2001). Prolegomena for a science of psycho-

narratology. In W. van Peer & S. Chatman (Eds.), New perspectives onnarrative perspective (pp. 275–287). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Erikson, E. H. (1962). Young man Luther: A study in psychoanalysis andhistory. New York: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1969). Gandhi’s truth: On the origins of militant nonvio-lence. New York: Norton.

Fine, M. (1992). Passion, politics and power. In M. Fine (Ed.), Disruptivevoices: The possibilities of feminist research (pp. 205–231). Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.

Foucault, M. (1971). The order of things: An archaeology of the humansciences. New York: Pantheon Books.

Gadamer, H. G. (1994). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. G.Marshall, Trans.). (2nd ed.). New York: Seabury Press.

Geertz, C. (1990). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author (Reprinted.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Gergen, K. J., & Davis, K. (Eds.). (1985). The social construction of theperson. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Gerhardt, J., & Stinson, C. (1994). The nature of therapeutic discourse:Account of the self. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 4, 151–191.

Gibson, A. (1996). Towards a postmodern theory of narrative. Edinburgh,Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

Gilbert, K. R. (2002). Taking a narrative approach to grief research:Finding meaning in stories. Death Studies, 26, 223–239.

Golden, P. M. (1976). The research experience. Itasca, IL: F. E. PeacockPublishers.

Gresson, A. D. (1992). African-Americans and the pursuit of wider iden-tities: Self-other understandings in Black female narratives. In G. C.Rosenwald & R. L. Ochberg (Eds.), Storied lives: The cultural politicsof self-understanding (pp. 165–177). New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Habermas, T., & Bluck, S. (2000). Getting a life: The emergence of the lifestory in adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 748–769.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson,Trans.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Herior, J. K., & Polinger, E. J. (Eds.). (2002). The use of personalnarratives in the helping professions: A teaching casebook. Binghamton,NY: Haworth Social Work Practice Press.

Herman, D. (Ed.). (1999). Narratologies: New perspectives on narrativeanalysis. Columbus: Ohio University Press.

Herman, L. (2003). Narratology and psychology: Holding on to one’sperspective. Poetics Today, 24, 397–401.

Hermans, H. J. M. (2004). The innovation of self-narratives: A dialogicapproach. In L. Angus & J. McLeod (Eds.), The handbook of narrativeand psychotherapy: Practice, theory, and research (pp. 175–191). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hoshmand, L. T. (1996). Cultural psychology as metatheory. Journal ofTheoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 16, 30–48.

Hoshmand, L. T. (Ed.). (1998). Creativity and moral vision in psychology:Narratives of identity and commitment in a postmodern age. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Hoshmand, L. T. (2000). Narrative psychology. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.),Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 382–387). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association and New York: Oxford University Press.

Hoshmand, L. T., & Martin, J. (Eds.). (1995). Research as praxis: Lessonsfrom programmatic research in therapeutic psychology. New York:Teachers College Press.

Howard, G. (1991). Culture tales: A narrative approach to thinking, cross-cultural psychology, and psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 46,187–197.

Josselson, R., & Lieblich, A. (Eds.). (1993). The narrative study of lives:New approaches to traditional issues (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Josselson, R., & Lieblich, A. (Eds.). (1995). Interpreting experience: Thenarrative study of lives (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kerby, A. T. (1991). Narratives and the self. Bloomington: Indiana Uni-versity Press.

Labov, W. (1982). Speech actions and reactions in personal narrative. In D.Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 219–247). Wash-ington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Lieblich, A., & Josselson, R. (Eds.). (1994). Exploring identity and gender:The narrative study of lives (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S. (1997). Self, subject, audience, text: Living at the edge,writing in the margin. In W. G. Tierney & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),Representation and the text: Re-framing the narrative voice (pp. 37–55).Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame,IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Mair, M. (1988). Psychology as storytelling. International Journal ofPersonal Construct Psychology, 1, 125–137.

Malain, P. A. (2001). In their own voices: A qualitative study of counselingstudents’ processes of developing multicultural counseling competency.Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: The Humanities andSocial Sciences, 62(5-A), 1721.

May, R. (1975). Values, myths and symbols. American Journal of Psychi-atry, 132, 703–706.

McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and themaking of the self. New York: Morrow.

McAdams, D. P., & Bowman, P. J. (2001). Narrating life’s turning points:Redemption and contamination. In D. P. McAdams, R. Josselson, & A.Lieblich (Eds.), Turns in the road: Narrative studies of lives in transition(pp. 3–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

McAdams, D. P., & Janis, L. (2004). Narrative identity and narrativetherapy. In L. Angus & J. McLeod (Eds.), The handbook of narrativeand psychotherapy: Practice, theory, and research (pp. 159–173).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McAdams, D. P., Josselson, R., & Lieblich, A. (Eds.). (2001). Turns in theroad: Narrative studies of lives in transition. Washington, DC: Ameri-can Psychological Association.

McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.). (1992). Therapy as social construc-tion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mezei, K. (Ed.). (1996). Ambiguous discourse: Feminist narratology andBritish women writers. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Mishler, E. G. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role ofexemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 415–442.

Mishler, E. G. (1995). Models of narrative analysis: A typology. Journal ofNarrative and Life History, 5, 87–123.

Modell, J. (1992). “How do you introduce yourself as a childless mother?”Birthparent interpretations of parenthood. In G. C. Rosenwald & R. L.Ochberg (Eds.), Storied lives: The cultural politics of self-understanding(pp. 76–94). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research incounseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 250–260.

Moustakas, C. (1961). Loneliness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford

University Press.

185SPECIAL ISSUE: NARRATOLOGY

Neimeyer, R. A., & Raskin, J. D. (2000). Constructions of disorder:Meaning-making frameworks for psychotherapy. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Nelles, W. (1997). Frameworks: Narrative levels and embedded narrative.New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Nunning, A. (2001). On the perspective structure of narrative texts: Stepstoward a constructivist narratology. In W. van Peer & S. Chatman (Eds.),New perspectives on narrative perspective (pp. 207–223). Albany, NY:SUNY Press.

Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1991). Narrative and self-concept. Journal of Narra-tive and Life History, 1, 135–153.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1994). Narrative approaches in psychology: Theories,methods, and applications. History and Philosophy of Psychology Bul-letin, 6, 12–18.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis.Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 5–23.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1997). Reporting qualitative research as practice. InW. G. Tierney & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Representation and the text:Re-framing the narrative voice (pp. 1–21). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (2000). Psychological inquiry and the pragmatic andhermeneutic traditions. Theory and Psychology, 10, 453–479.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection inqualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 137–145.

Prince, G. (1997). Narratology and narratological analysis. Journal ofNarrative and Life History, 7, 39–44.

Rabinow, P., & Sullivan, W. M. (Eds.). (1987). Interpretive social science.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rappaport, J. (1995). Empowerment meets narratives: Listening to storiesand creating settings. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23,795–805.

Reinharz, S. (1994). Feminist biography: The pains, the joys, the dilem-mas. In A. Lieblich & R. Josselson (Eds.), Exploring identity andgender: The narrative study of lives (Vol. 2., pp. 37–82). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Richardson, B. (2000). Recent concepts of narrative and the narratives ofnarrative theory. Style, 34, 168–176.

Ricoeur, P. (1984–1989). Time and narrative (K. McLaughlin & D.Pellauer, Trans.; Vols. 1–3). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(Original work published 1983)

Riessman, C. K. (1992). Making sense of marital violence: One woman’snarrative. In G. C. Rosenwald & R. L. Ochberg (Eds.), Storied lives: Thecultural politics of self-understanding (pp. 231–249). New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Roberts, J. S., & Rosenwald, G. C. (2001). Ever upward and no turningback: Social mobility and identity formation among first-generationcollege students. In D. P. McAdams, R. Josselson, & A. Lieblich (Eds.),Turns in the road: Narrative studies of lives in transition (pp. 121–149).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rosenthal, G. (1993). Reconstruction of lives: Principles of selection ingenerating stories for narrative biographical interviews. In R. Josselson

& A. Lieblich (Eds.), The narrative study of lives: New approaches totraditional issues (Vol. 1., pp. 59–91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rosenwald, G. C., & Ochberg, R. L. (Eds.). (1992). Storied lives: Thecultural politics of self-understanding. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Runyun, W. M. (1983). Idiographic goals and methods in the study of lives.Journal of Personality, 41, 984–987.

Runyun, W. M. (1996). Psychobiography: Understanding one life at a time.Contemporary Psychology, 41, 984–987.

Russell, R. L., van den Broek, P., Adams, S., Rosenberger, K., & Essig, T.(1993). Analyzing narratives in psychotherapy: A formal framework andempirical analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 3, 337–360.

Sarbin, T. R. (Ed.). (1986). Narrative psychology: The storied nature ofhuman conduct. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Sass, L. A., & Woolfolk, R. L. (1988). Psychoanalysis and the hermeneuticturn: A critique of Narrative Truth and Historical Truth. Journal of theAmerican Psychoanalytic Association, 36, 425–454.

Scheuer, J. (2003). Habitus as the principle for social practice: A proposalfor critical discourse analysis. Language in Society, 32, 243–275.

Shay, J. (1994). Achilles in Vietnam: Combat trauma and the undoing ofcharacter. New York: Atheneum.

Shotter, J., & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.). (1989). Texts of identity. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in culturalpsychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Silber, J. (2004). Why can’t a story be more like a novel? The Writer’sChronicle, 36, 16–20.

Skovholt, T. M., & Ronnestad, M. H. (1995). The evolving professionalself: Stages and themes in therapist and counselor development. NewYork: Wiley.

Spence, D. (1984). Narrative truth and historical truth. New York: Norton.Spence, D. P. (1986). Narrative smoothing and clinical wisdom. In T. R.

Sarbin (Ed.), Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human con-duct (pp. 211–232). New York: Praeger Publishers.

Stanzel, F. K. (1988). A theory of narrative (3rd ed.). New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

van Peer, W., & Chatman, S. (Eds.). (2001). New perspectives on narrativeperspective. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

White, M. (2004). Folk psychology and narrative practice. In L. Angus &J. McLeod (Eds.), The handbook of narrative and psychotherapy: Prac-tice, theory, and research (pp. 15–51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. NewYork: Norton.

Wiseman, H. (1995). The quest for connectedness: Loneliness as process inthe narratives of lonely university students. In R. Josselson & A. Lie-blich (Eds.), Interpreting experience: The narrative study of lives (Vol.3., pp. 116–152). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Received May 17, 2004Revision received September 2, 2004

Accepted September 25, 2004 �

186 HOSHMAND