777

Talking About Research:Applying Textual Analysis Software To Student Interviews

Sarah Wagner and Ann Marshall*

IntroductionTeaching librarians’ expertise can distance them from the students they seek to instruct. What is readily ap-parent to a librarian can be mystifying and unclear to a novice researcher and can lay the groundwork for mis-communication and incomprehension. In an effort to better understand the research process from a student perspective, the authors conducted a study based upon one-on-one interviews that asked students to describe their experiences with research.

Using data from these interviews, this paper aims to answer two research questions: (1) What does the term “research” mean to students and to what extent do students talk about doing research using terminology other than research? (2) How do students form narratives in order to make sense of the research process as part of their own learning? In order to tackle these questions, the authors have used Voyant Tools to perform a textual analysis of student word usage in the interviews and have also applied narrative inquiry as a lens for analysis to better understand how students speak about research.

Literature ReviewThis review of related scholarship aims to place the study within three frames: librarian-student interview stud-ies, the use of Voyant for scholarly analysis, and the use of narrative inquiry as a research method. First, several significant studies have been conducted by academic librarians that take an ethnographic approach and using open-ended interviews to delve into the student experience. Khoo, Rozaklis, and Hall survey various ethno-graphic approaches, including interviews with students, and discussed the value of these approaches to the changing nature of libraries.1 Dubicki also delves into the question of how students experience the research process and, using students’ own reflections, emphasized the value of considering alternative perspectives from those of librarians and faculty.2

In addition, digital humanities scholars have embraced Voyant Tools for quantitative data analysis of liter-ary texts, especially given Voyant’s open source availability.3 For example, Rambsy describes his use of Voyant for text-mining in short fiction and calls for new avenues of research focused on the use of digital tools.4 While most often used in humanities-related research, Voyant has been utilized in other disciplines, especially within the field of medicine and in studies that analyze online media or published texts.5 Voyant has been applied to range of types of research questions, including an analysis of physician editorials on 1889 Russian flu epidemic,6 the meanings of the word “understanding” in the journal Public Understanding of Science,7 and a content analysis of library institutional repository submission agreements.8 While not always utilizing Voyant Tools, researchers have also studied how particular terms are used in common speech, such as Hamilton, Adolphs, and Nerlich’s

* Sarah Wagner, Assistant Librarian, Purdue University Fort Wayne, wagners@pfw.edu. Ann Marshall, Assistant Librarian, Purdue University Fort Wayne, marshala@pfw.edu

in-depth look at the term “risk”9 and Mackiewicz’s analysis of students and tutors’ word usage during writing center consultations.10

In contrast to the quantitative approach offered by Voyant Tools, narrative inquiry is a qualitative social sci-ence approach focused on how narratives are constructed to make meaning. Narrative inquiry is applicable across a range of disciplines and, most relevant to this study, has been used in educational research. In Using Narrative Inquiry as a Research Method, Webster and Mertova provide an overview of narrative inquiry and how it can be utilized, particularly in research on learning and teaching.11 Like Voyant Tools, narrative inquiry is an approach that has been applied across a number of disciplines and has a relevant history of scholarship within the discipline of education. Narrative inquiry is based upon the idea that human beings tell stories to make sense of their ex-periences. This claim is articulated by Bell who discusses the narrative inquiry approach in detail, along with its benefits and limitations, and its particular appeal for educators.12 Schaefer presents his own journey of incorporat-ing narrative inquiry into his pedagogy and discusses what narrative inquiry adds to the educational experience.13 Bignold and Su present narrative inquiry as a research method useful for incorporating participants’ multiple identities.14 These methods and the associated literature display the diverse scholarly landscape into which the authors seek to place this study. This literature on narrative inquiry adds to the authors’ use of Voyant by providing a theoretical framework through which to view students’ depiction of their research process.

MethodologyThe authors sought to better understand students’ experience of doing research assignments through a qualita-tive, interview-based methodology. After receiving IRB approval for the study, twenty interviews were conduct-ed with students at Purdue University Fort Wayne between 2016 and 2018. The students ranged from first-year students to seniors and included traditional students, returning adults and students who were nonnative English speakers. The interviews began with students being asked to talk about a recent experience of doing research and to then describe their process. The interviews were primarily open-ended, asking students to expand and reflect on their research experiences. The interviews were then transcribed and analyzed. To use Voyant for textual analysis, the authors first needed to prepare the interview transcripts. They created a version of the interview transcripts which eliminated anything spoken by the interviewer, so that the text would only consist of the stu-dents’ words. This document was then uploaded to Voyant-tools.org for analysis.

In order to investigate what the word “research” means to students, the authors used Voyant to examine each time a student used the word and the context in which the word was used. Voyant allows for one to specify “research” with a wildcard ending so that different forms of the term “research” (researching, researched, etc.) were included in the analysis. Using Voyant, the authors did three types of analysis: what terms collocated with research, the terms that correlated with research, and the contexts in which the word “research” was used. In order to decipher how students spoke of research without using the term directly, the authors looked at terms related to the research process, such as “searching,” “credibility,” and “citation.” They also did a careful reading of the interview transcripts to identify sections in which students seemed to be describing the activity of research, regardless of the terminology used.

In the second portion of the analysis, the authors utilized narrative inquiry and there is no standard meth-odology for this type of theoretical approach.15 After reviewing several articles that utilized narrative inquiry within the discipline of education, the authors chose to focus on themes that emerged across the interviews and that seemed to best evoke student stories about their experience of doing research. The authors also considered content that emerged in the interviews which was not directly tied to the students’ research process, but that helped create a picture of what students grapple with while engaged in research assignments.

Sarah Wagner and Ann Marshall

ACRL 2019 • RECASTING THE NARRATIVE

778

Research in Students’ WordsStudents used the term “research” widely; it appeared 389 times over twenty in-terviews. It is important to note that students were specifically asked about their research process which certainly prompted a greater use of this term. To explore what meaning students gave to the term “research,” the authors delved deeper both into the student transcripts and the data provided by Voyant Tools.

Voyant allows for relationships between words to be closely examined. The three tables below are based on data from Voyant, showing terms which col-locate with research (table 1), terms which correlate with research (table 2) and the context in which the word research was used (table 3). Words that collocate are terms that appear next to each other more frequently than chance allows and, in contrast, correlated terms indicate a mutual relationship between the terms. As shown in table 1, the strongest collocate for research was the term “paper,” and the fourth most common collocate was the plural “papers.” This is likely due to the terminology employed by teaching faculty in assigning “research papers.” “Project,” another assignment-based term, was the fifth most common collocate. Other terms appearing as collocates included “lot” and “doing,” which interest-ingly seemed to point to the amount of work students associated with research.

Voyant allows the user to view the context in which each collocate appears, and a close examination of the collocation between research and paper highlights the close rela-tionship between research and writing. Students speak of “writ-ing the paper as I’m doing the research,” and “normally when I write a research paper I will do my research first, but then I’ll con-tinue to do more as needed.” Research and writing are clearly in-tertwined, and students appear to mix the activity of writing and research, not treating either process separately. Some instances mention specific aspects of the research assignment that the stu-dent struggled with, such as citation style, with one student stat-ing, “I hadn’t done citation. I don’t even know if I was ever taught like the citations before.”

Correlation, while similar to collocation, refers to a mutual relationship or connection between two terms. Voyant utilizes a statistical measure known as the Pearson correlation coefficient which places a numerical value on correlation. In table 2, the cor-relation values for the top 15 terms correlated with “research” throughout the interviews are provided. Values closer to 1 indi-cate a higher correlation and values closer to 0 indicate no cor-relation.

Similar to the collocated terms, the words displaying a high correlation with research reflect the kinds of elements that go into a student’s research project. For example, verbs indicating action, such as “going,” “handling,” and “created” appeared prominently in the correlates and again allude to the work students associated

TABLE 2Terms Correlated with “Research”

Term Correlation (r)*

1 going 0.8318358

2 extra 0.8163877

3 presentation 0.7829822

4 becoming 0.7799802

5 blogs 0.7799802

6 cancel 0.7799802

7 confirm 0.7799802

8 graded 0.7799802

9 handling 0.7799802

10 legit 0.7799802

11 lie 0.7799802

12 members 0.7793061

13 created 0.7682649

14 ahead 0.7652407

15 based 0.763038

*Correlation values closer to 1 indicate a stronger relationship

TABLE 1Collocates with the term

“Research”

Collocate Count

1 paper 48

2 like 43

3 just 34

4 papers 23

5 project 22

6 it’s 21

7 really 20

8 lot 20

9 yeah 18

10 doing 18

11 I’m 17

12 class 17

Talking About Research

APRIL 10–13, 2019 • CLEVELAND, OHIO

779

with research. Analysis into the context in which research was used further highlight this aspect, with more than one student discussing research as a task that needed to be “conducted.” Other vocabulary utilized like “extra” and “ahead” suggest the desire of students to do well when engaged with research. Other terms high on the list included “blogs,” “legit,” and “lie,” signifying the types of sources students encountered and the need for critically evaluating these information sources. The terms “presentation” and “graded” imply students were focused on completing their projects, and they didn’t lose sight that the work they were engaged in was going to be graded.

Context is important to understanding the meaning of a term and table 3 displays how Voyant views the context in which a word is used. In order to better interpret how the word research was used, the authors exam-ined 300 uses of the term “research” across the twenty interviews to note the themes for words that arose through the collocation and correlation analyses. One theme to emerge was students speaking of research as tied to an assignment and creating some kind of final product such as a paper, presentation, or other graded project. Often specific classes and even specific professors were mentioned in conjunction with research. On more than one occasion, students talked about research as work and many found it challenging. One student spoke of writing a research paper as “overwhelming” and stated, “there’s so much things that go into it.” Students also spoke of a variety of different resources they used for research, with “Google,” “databases,” and “library” all making appear-ances in the data. Overall, this collection of terms showed that students thought of research as part of a process leading towards a finished product that required work, in the form of time and resources, to complete.

While Voyant is a powerful resource for analyzing how students spoke about research, this analysis is limited to actual use of the specific term “research.” To assess how students spoke about their work when not using this specific term, the authors needed to read the interview transcripts closely to seek out related terms and their usage.

One of the first things the authors noticed was students who spoke of a “general search” to describe the early stages of their research when they were choosing and defining their topics. One student described their struggles with narrowing a research question and locating more precise sources, saying, “it is better to do just more general search. Rather than specifically. Cause it usually doesn’t really fit what I’m looking for.” Other stu-dents spoke of a “general search” ultimately leading to a more specific search for what became their topic. One student evoked the same idea of starting their research with a broad search using whatever resource was easy to

TABLE 3Research in Context

So for my three main points, I kind of had to do general

research about that.

Mostly research is just done on my laptop. Mostly to look up for things.And that’s the typical trend I see with every research paper. I have like a general idea of where I want to go.since there’s a lot of secondary sources on

there, I was able to tie theresearch with secondary sources and mix and mash them that

way to make my argument.Sometimes, I’ll start a research project and I find absolutely nothing.

I found in college research papers is bad as it sounds. Like there’s so much information out there anymore.

the writing requirement for history majors, there’s definitely a lot of

research involved with that and I will say that that class actually helped me a lot

But still, writing a research paper, it took me three or four hours to write two pages.

Sarah Wagner and Ann Marshall

ACRL 2019 • RECASTING THE NARRATIVE

780

use and familiar before narrowing it down to a more specific research question, stating “First thing, what I tried to do is basic searches. One thing I do know about is Google Scholar. And I do know about our database as well.”

Some students drew a line between research assignments and other types of course work. One student described one non-research paper assignment as “find other information and just talking about it instead of reviewing it and then how it, it would tie in to a broad topic or tie into a specific topic.” One might contest that an assignment requiring the gathering and synthesizing of information certainly involves information literacy skills, but the student declined to classify this as “research.” Another student spoke of an assignment that “wasn’t really like a research paper though. I only needed five sources, and it was six pages.” Similar to the previous stu-dent, this one spoke of the searching and analysis of sources done for the assignment as falling outside the scope of research. Many, but not all, students interviewed appeared to identify research with assignments carrying this label and many discussed such assignments as “time consuming,” “very technical,” and requiring one to “basi-cally pick every little thing apart.” Students appeared to see “research” as something reserved for a particular type of assignment that is either a longer paper or more in-depth and technical, and finding information for other types of assignments did not fit into the student conception of research.

Building a NarrativeAfter viewing the student interviews through the focused perspective offered by Voyant and the analysis of specific words and phrases, narrative inquiry provided the authors with a broader view by connecting students’ views of research to their wider experience of being a student. Throughout the semi-structured interviews, stu-dents made reference to their own experiences and feelings about research, mentioned the people who helped them accomplish their coursework, and touched upon the things going on in their lives external to the class-room. These are the elements the authors examined to build a narrative of the student experience surrounding research assignments.

Students expressed a range of emotions about research from feeling overwhelmed to neutral acceptance to enjoyment. The responses did correlate to some degree with the students’ progress towards their degree. A first-year student spoke of receiving his first research assignment and taking “a deep breath and it was like, ‘I got some work to do.’” A student further along in their educational path expressed a more neutral opinion towards research, saying, “Research doesn’t bother me. It’s more time consuming, but if it’s what you need to do, it’s what you need to do.” A student in their junior year spoke of research almost with enjoyment, stating “I just like talk-ing about findings. These articles are amazing because, they’re adding information to our body of knowledge about a certain topic.” This range of reactions suggests how students have mixed feelings regarding research and, to some degree, how these emotions are influenced by where the students are in their educational journey. The first-year student was honest about how overwhelmed they felt, while the junior expressed how much they had enjoyed discovering new information. Overall, students also appeared to express more positive feelings towards research when they were engaged in projects related to their area of study. One upper-class student reflected on their progress, saying “My first paper research article that I wrote about a topic, my first semester of freshman year. That was very difficult…. I’ve evolved from being unable to do that or, not doing it as well, but I’ve gotten a lot better with it now.”

Students acknowledged those who were part of the research process and helped in various ways, often men-tioning professors and fellow students. When speaking of others who aided in the research process, students often brought up those who initially assigned them work involving research—their professors. Some students expressed frustration, one saying their professor “hasn’t really given much in-class instruction whatsoever. It’s just on the syllabus.” Others were more positive about the assistance their instructors offered, with one student

Talking About Research

APRIL 10–13, 2019 • CLEVELAND, OHIO

781

saying “the professors have been immensely helpful.” At least one student suggested that advice given by a pro-fessor isn’t necessarily followed, saying “Most of the professors I have just say—just go on the library’s website and they have the databases on there. Which I don’t know—I know most, pretty much all, students use Google.” These mixed reactions likely allude to the differing teaching styles of instructors, but also to the various ways students approach their assignments. Some students reached out for help, and spoke of their experience doing so, while others did not. For the students interviewed in this study, both seeking help and not were part of the student experience of doing research.

Students also mentioned friends and classmates as useful resources when they needed assistance. One stu-dent said “I have phone numbers of lots of people in my class…we’ll text each other or talk to each other after class.” A student even mentioned helping fellow classmates locate resources: “I actually did have a guy in my class ask me where I got my article, and I was like, ‘Yeah, you can go and use your [campus] login and there’s a whole bunch of them you can access.’” These reports of peer-to-peer interactions seemed to show students were likely to reach out to those in their own peer group for assistance with research assignments.

In the interviews, students often spoke of other things going on in their lives while they were engaged with research assignments. Several students spoke of juggling multiple assignments within the same time frame. In the words of one student: “I’ve had three papers that are due just this semester on research and I’m still, I’m doing one right now currently.” Another described a similar scenario when coffee helped them at a time when they “had like three fifteen-pagers all due at the same time.” Outside of classwork, several students mentioned jobs and the difficulties of being both employed and a student. One student described an intense daily sched-ule: “Wake up at nine because I can and then go to class … [at] like ten and then stay in class until four thirty and then … I worked until ten and then I would get home and then I’d pour out a pot of like three cups or four cups and stay up until three and do it all over again.” This schedule, involving a combination of class, work, and homework, illustrates the strain many students find themselves under while trying to juggle multiple priorities.

ConclusionThis paper focused on how students talk about their research process and viewed students’ understanding of “research” through both a quantitative and qualitative lens. In the first, with a quantitative analysis of word usage, students spoke of research as tied to their coursework and especially to graded assignments. The terms correlated with “research” suggested students’ concerns about evaluating information and the amount of labor they associated with producing research assignments. As librarians engaged in information literacy instruction, the authors found these insights useful for how students conceptualized research assignments. The analysis of terms and phrases students utilized to speak about the research process reminds information and education professionals to be cognizant of technical and expert language and to instead use everyday terms when discuss-ing research, while also reminding students to apply the skills they develop during these assignments for their other coursework.

Narrative inquiry, a qualitative analysis approach, directed the authors to take a step back from the detailed analysis of Voyant to consider the wider context of students’ experience of research assignments. Students ap-proached research with varying comfort levels, ranging from the nervousness of first-year students to the excited engagement of upper-class students. In addition, students do not work in isolation; they complete this work while juggling other commitments and through feedback from professors, friends, and classmates.

Each of these insights add to the overall picture of students’ research experience, and a consideration of these factors can help librarians provide instruction focused on actual student needs. Some questions which arose in the course of this study remain unanswered and would require further investigation. While this study viewed the

Sarah Wagner and Ann Marshall

ACRL 2019 • RECASTING THE NARRATIVE

782

twenty interviews as a whole and looked for overall patterns, future research could use Voyant to examine each interview separately in order to conduct a comparative analysis. Voyant could also be used to analyze other word choices beyond students’ descriptions of “research.” Another potential approach would be a further exploration of how students depicted the library, librarians, and library resources as part of their research experience, which may provide a useful perspective for library professionals. In conclusion, while students’ narratives about doing research provide invaluable insights, Voyant tools offers an equally important perspective and draws attention to themes which might otherwise be missed, such as students’ depiction of their research as a form of work.

Endnotes1. Michael Koo, Lily Rozalis, and Catherine Hall, “A Survey of the Use of Ethnographic Methods in the Study of Libraries and Li-

brary Users,” Library & Information Science Research 34, no. 2 (2012): 86.2. Eleanora Dubicki, “Writing a Research Paper: Students Explain Their Process,” Reference Services Review 43, no. 4 (2015): 673-688.3. Margaret Boyle and Crystal Hall, “Teaching Don Quixote in the Digital Age: Page and Screen, Visual and Tactile,” Hispania 99, no.

4 (2016): 600-14. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2016.0106; Tom Liam Lynch, “Counting Characters: Quantitative Approaches to Lit-erary Study, (Soft(a)Ware in the English Classroom),” 104, no. 6 (2015): 71-74; Tom Liam Lynch, “Spreadsheets and Sinners: How and Why English Teachers Can Claim Their Rightful Place in Stem Education, (Soft(a)Ware in the English Classroom)(Column),” 104, no. 5 (2015): 98-101.

4. Kenton Rambsy, “Text-Mining Short Fiction by Zora Neale Hurston and Richard Wright Using Voyant Tools,” CLA Journal 59, no. 3 (2016): 251-58.

5. W. De Caro, L. Mitello, A.R. Marucci, L. Lancia, and J. Sansoni, “Textual Analysis and Data Mining: An Interpreting Research on Nursing,” Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 225 (2016): 948.

6. E. Thomas Ewing, “Will It Come Here? Using Digital Humanities Tools to Explore Medical Understanding During the Russian Flu Epidemic, 1889-90,” Medical History 61, no. 3 (2017): 474-77, https://doi.org/10.1017/mdh.2017.53.

7. Joanna K. Huxster, Matthew H. Slater, Jason Leddington, Victor Lopiccolo, Jeffrey Bergman, Mack Jones, Caroline McGlynn, et al, “Understanding “Understanding” in Public Understanding of Science,” Public Understanding of Science 27, no. 7 (2018): 756-71, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517735429.

8. Amanda Rinehart and Jim Cunningham, “Breaking It Down: A Brief Exploration of Institutional Repository Submission Agree-ments,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 43, no. 1 (2017): 39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.10.002.

9. Craig Hamilton, Svenja Adolphs, and Brigitte Nerlich. “The Meanings of ‘Risk’: A View from Corpus Linguistics.” Discourse & Society: An International Journal for the Study of Discourse and Communication in Their Social, Political and Cultural Contexts 18, no. 2 (2007): 163-81.

10. Jo Mackiewicz Jo, The Aboutness of Writing Center Talk: A Corpus-Driven and Discourse Analysis, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017.

11. Leonard Webster and Patricie Mertova, Using Narrative Inquiry as a Research Method: An Introduction to Using Critical Event Nar-rative Analysis in Research on Learning and Teaching (New York: Routledge, 2007).

12. Jill Sinclair Bell, “Narrative Inquiry: More than Just Telling Stories,” TESOL Quarterly 36, no. 2 (2002): 207-212.13. Lee Schaefer, “Narrative Inquiry for Physical Education Pedagogy,” International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 8, no. 1

(2013):18-26.14. Wendy Bignold and Feng Su, “The Role of the Narrator in Narrative Inquiry in Education: Construction and Co-Construction in

Two Case Studies,” International Journal of Research & Method in Education 36, no. 4 (2013): 400-414.15. Webster and Mertova, Using Narrative, 6.

BibliographyBell, Jill Sinclair. “Narrative Inquiry: More Than Just Telling Stories.” TESOL Quarterly 36, no. 2 (2002): 207-212.Boyle, Margaret, and Crystal Hall. “Teaching Don Quixote in the Digital Age: Page and Screen, Visual and Tactile.” Hispania 99, no. 4

(2016): 600-14. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2016.0106.Bignold, Wendy, and Su, Feng. “The Role of the Narrator in Narrative Inquiry in Education: Construction and Co-Construction in Two

Case Studies.” International Journal of Research & Method in Education 36, no. 4 (2013): 400-14.De Caro, W., L Mitello, A. R. Marucci, L. Lancia, and J. Sansoni. “Textual Analysis and Data Mining: An Interpreting Research on Nurs-

ing.” Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 225 (2016): 948. Dubicki, Eleonora. “Writing a Research Paper: Students Explain Their Process.” Reference Services Review 43, no. 4 (2015): 673-88.Hamilton, Craig, Adolphs, Svenja, and Nerlich, Brigitte. “The Meanings of ‘Risk’: A View from Corpus Linguistics.” Discourse & Society:

An International Journal for the Study of Discourse and Communication in Their Social, Political and Cultural Contexts 18, no. 2 (2007): 163-81.

Talking About Research

APRIL 10–13, 2019 • CLEVELAND, OHIO

783

Huxster, Joanna K., Matthew H. Slater, Jason Leddington, Victor Lopiccolo, Jeffrey Bergman, Mack Jones, Caroline McGlynn, et al. “Understanding “Understanding” in Public Understanding of Science.” Public Understanding of Science 27, no. 7 (2018): 756-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517735429.

Khoo, Michael, Lily Rozaklis, and Catherine Hall. “A Survey of the Use of Ethnographic Methods in the Study of Libraries and Library Users.” Library & Information Science Research 34, no. 2 (2012): 82-91.

Lynch, Tom Liam. “Counting Characters: Quantitative Approaches to Literary Study. (Soft(a)Ware in the English Classroom)(Col-umn).” 104, no. 6 (2015): 71-74.

———. “Spreadsheets and Sinners: How and Why English Teachers Can Claim Their Rightful Place in Stem Education. (Science, Tech-nology, Engineering and Mathematics)(Soft(a)Ware in the English Classroom)(Column).” 104, no. 5 (2015): 98-101.

Mackiewicz, Jo. The Aboutness of Writing Center Talk: A Corpus-Driven and Discourse Analysis. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017.

Rambsy, Kenton. “Text-Mining Short Fiction by Zora Neale Hurston and Richard Wright Using Voyant Tools.” CLA Journal 59, no. 3 (2016): 251-58.

Rinehart, Amanda, and Jim Cunningham. “Breaking It Down: A Brief Exploration of Institutional Repository Submission Agreements.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 43, no. 1 (2017): 39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.10.002.

Schaefer, Lee. “Narrative Inquiry for Physical Education Pedagogy.” International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 8, no. 1 (2013): 18-26.

Thomas Ewing, E. “Will It Come Here? Using Digital Humanities Tools to Explore Medical Understanding During the Russian Flu Epidemic, 1889-90.” Medical History 61, no. 3 (2017): 474-77. https://doi.org/10.1017/mdh.2017.53.

Webster, Leonard, and Patricie Mertova. Using Narrative Inquiry as a Research Method: An Introduction to Using Critical Event Narrative Analysis in Research on Learning and Teaching. New York: Routledge, 2007.

Sarah Wagner and Ann Marshall

ACRL 2019 • RECASTING THE NARRATIVE

784