This article reviews the practice of interview-based research through the metaphor of researcher as ghostwriter. What is suggested is that research can be examined as a form of textual practice in which researchers create images of others and also enter those images. In such a practice, research can be understood as a dialogic process where researchers are never neutral in their attempts to write about the lives of other people. This then leads to a need for researchers to account for their textual choices and their role in producing accounts of the experience of others. The article concludes that the ghostwriter metaphor is a way of understanding research that enables researchers to acknowledge their role in the production of textual representations of their research participants.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albrow, M. (1997). Do organizations have feelings?London: Routledge.
2.
Baudrillard, J. (1983). Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e).
3.
Cherryholmes, C. (1993). ‘Reading research’Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(1), 1-32.
4.
Czarniawska, B. (1998). Who is afraid of incommensurability?Organization, 5(2), 273-275.
5.
Denzin, N. K. (1994). The art and politics of interpretation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 500-515). London: Sage Ltd.
6.
Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Fox, N. J. (1995). Intertextuality and the writing of social research. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 1(2). Available: http://129.128.113.200:8010
8.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1997). The new language of qualitative method. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1998). Narrative practice and the coherence of personal stories. The Sociological Quarterly, 39(1), 163-187.
10.
Gudmundsdottir, S. (1996). The teller, the tale, and the one being told: The narrative nature of the research interview. Curriculum Inquiry, 26(3), 293-306.
11.
Hester, S., & Francis, D. (1994). Doing data: The local organization of a sociological interview. British Journal of Sociology, pp. 675-695.
12.
Hutchinson, S., & Wilson, H. (1995). Research and therapeutic interviews: a poststructuralist perspective. In J. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 300-315). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Kilduff, M. (1993). Deconstructing organizations. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 13-31.
14.
Langellier, K. M. (1989). Personal narratives: Perspectives on theory and research. Text and Performance Quarterly, 9(4), 243-276.
15.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.
16.
Marcus, G. E. (1994). What comes (just) after “post”? the case of ethnography. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 563-574). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage Ltd.
18.
Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Pelias, R. J. (1999). Writing performance: Poeticizing the researcher’s body. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
20.
Peterson, E. E., & Langellier, K. M. (1997). The politics of personal narrative methodology. Text and Performance Quarterly, 17(2), 135-152.
21.
Rhodes, C. (1996). Researching organizational change and learning: A narrative approach. The Qualitative Report, 2(4). Available: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/index.html
22.
Rhodes, C. (1997a). The legitimation of learning in organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10(1), 10-21.
23.
Rhodes, C. (1997b). Playing with words: Multiple representations of organizational learning stories. Electronic Journal of Radical Organization Theory, 1(3). Available: http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/depts/sm&l/journal/ejrot.htm
24.
Rhodes, C. (2000a). Dialogue and knowledge at work. In J. Garrick & C. Rhodes (Eds.), Research and knowledge at work (pp. 217-231). London: Routledge.
25.
Rhodes, C. (2000b). Reading and writing organizational lives. Organization, 7(1), 7-29.
26.
Richardson, L. L. (1992). The consequences of poetic representation: Writing the Other, rewriting the Self. In C. Ellis & M. G. Flaherty (Eds.), Investigating subjectivity: Research on lived experience (pp. 125-137). Newbury Park: Sage.
27.
Scheurich, J. J. (1995). A postmodernist critique of research interviewing. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(3), 239-252.
28.
Silverman, D. (1985). Qualitative methodology and sociology: Describing the social world. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
29.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage, Ltd.
30.
Tagg, S. K. (1985). Life story interviews and their interpretation. In M. Brenner, J. Brown, & D. Canter (Eds.), The research interview: Uses and approaches (pp. 163-199). London: Academic Press.
31.
Tripp, D. H. (1983). Co-authorship and negotiation: The interview as act of creation. Interchange, 14(3), 32-45.
