Over-stating claims for story and for narrative inquiry Claim 1: Stories are beneficent

Abstract

Commentary on Shijing Xu and Michael Connelly's " Narrative inquiry for school-based research " ; Volume 20(2), pp. 349–370. The approach to narrative inquiry in school-based settings set forth by Xu and Connelly has gained prominence and acclaim in certain domains of educational research. On my reading, the approach runs the risk of over-stating claims for sto-ry and for narrative inquiry more broadly, a limitation of the approach that could become harmful to people who are especially vulnerable in (and beyond) schools. To illustrate this problem, I would like to address three of the claims made in the article, " Narrative inquiry for school-based research " : Claim 1: Stories are beneficent Claim 2: Narrative inquiry is a way of " experiencing experience " Claim 3: Narrative inquiry improves the conditions and situations of persons in and beyond schools The first claim remains implicit in the article, while the second and third claims are explicitly stated.