Narrative: an Alternative Way to Gain Consumer Insights

2007 Oxford Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 978-0-9742114-7-3

Narrative: An Alternative Way to Gain Consumer Insights

Kritsadarat Wattanasuwan, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand

ABSTRACT

This paper explores ‘narrative’ as a qualitative research method to gain consumer insights. Fundamentally, narrative is a story of one’s experiences, feelings and beliefs. It illustrates how one acts and interacts with others as well as how one makes sense of one’s world. First the paper sketches out the definition and the underlying philosophy of narrative interview and narrative analysis. Then the paper discusses how to conduct and interpret the narrative interview lucratively. Later the paper assesses the limitations of the narrative method, and proposes how we can justify and enhance the trustworthiness of narrative interviews.

INTRODUCTION

‘ Narrative’ is a term being used broadly, and being applied in many different ways. In qualitative research, narrative has become a vital research strategy to grasp the insightful data which can barely be attained by any other methods (e.g., Bonsu and Belk 2003, Joy and Sherry 2003, Muniz and O’Quinn 2001, Penaloza 2001, Price et al. 2000, Thompson and Haytko 1997). Fundamentally, narrative is a story of one’s experiences, feelings and beliefs (Langellier 1989, Mishler 1986, Polkinghorne 1995). It illustrates how one acts and interacts with others as well as how one makes sense of one’s world (Ricoeur 1981, Smith 1981, White 1981). Thus, narrative inquiry is the superlative way to explore phenomenologically one’s experience of particular events. Although narratives can be conveyed in various means, marketing researchers usually elicit one’s narrative through interview.

In this paper I address narrative interview as a qualitative method for consumer research. First I sketch out the definition and the underlying philosophy of narrative interview and narrative analysis. Then I discuss how to conduct and interpret the narrative interview lucratively. Later I assess the limitations of the narrative method, and propose how we can justify and enhance the trustworthiness of narrative interviews. Finally I examine the particularities of marketing research for which the narrative interview is appropriate and explore a few eminent examples of marketing research having employed narrative interviews.

NARRATIVE: DEFINITION AND PHILOSOPHY

Narrative interview is a data collecting method by which we enquire a research respondent to tell us a story of what we want to study. It is the way we try to understand the point of view and experience from the perspective of those (e.g., research respondents) who live it (Polkinghorne 1988, Ricoeur 1981). Narrative interview allows research respondents to unfold the way they view themselves and their world. Manifestly the stories being told reveal the research respondents’ personal meanings of a particular event and the complex motives that drive their behaviour . Through narrative interview researchers have a better opportunity to deal with the complexity of human reality, particularly the multifaceted nature of the self.

As social saturation in postmodernity has decentred human experience into pieces (Firat and Venkatesh 1995), we are striving to bring together diverse elements into an integrated whole in order to live meaningfully (Gergen 1991). We try to re-organise and unify our saturated self into the narrative self (Giddens 1991; McAdams 1997). We make an effort to coordinate the multiple and conflicting facets of our lives within a narrative framework which connects past, present, and an anticipated future and confers upon our lives a sense of sameness and continuity (McAdams 1988). Ricoeur (1984, 1992) also supports that we require a narrative identity for our self, that is, we make sense of ourselves and our lives by the stories we can (or cannot) tell. Presumably, we come to know ourselves by the narratives we construct to situate ourselves temporally and spatially. Coyle (1992) elaborates that a person creates a life story, a biography or a personal narrative in an attempt to impart meaning and coherence to his/her disparate life experiences by forging connections, imposing causality, and making it appear as if his/her life has unfolded or is unfolding in a purposeful way.

June 24-26, 2007 1 Oxford University, UK 2007 Oxford Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 978-0-9742114-7-3

The life stories we create are not only a way of telling others or ourselves about our lives but also the means by which our identities are fashioned (Rosenwald and Ochberg 1992). We may not only tell the chronicle of who we are (or have been) but also an imagination of what we wish to become (or to have become). Gabriel and Lang (1995) observe that identity is not only an embellished account of our adventures, accomplishments and tribulations, but also that vital web of truths, half- truths and wish-fulfilling fictions which sustain us. Certainly, in order to carry on our sense of existence, we need to uphold our capacity to keep a particular narrative going (Giddens 1991). Giddens (1991) maintains that we cannot just tell a wholly fictive story – we must persistently incorporate events that occur in the ‘real’ world and arrange them into the ongoing narrative of the self.

Although we attempt to construct a coherent and continuous narrative of our lives, we frequently tell different stories about ourselves in different contexts (Harre 1998; McAdams 1997). Obviously, the narrative self is not just one story told to some generic and anonymous audience. In fact, it comprises several episodes of our lives, and how the quality, value, detail and arrangement of the episodes recounted depends on the person to whom the tale is told, the context of the telling and the aim of the story-teller at that moment in the telling of it (Harre 1998). Nevertheless, each life episode is not totally worlds apart from each other – all episodes still share the main character (i.e., the person whose life story is about), even though the main character possibly appear in a variety of guises, each embody particular facets of her/his narrative self (McAdams 1997). Indeed, some narrative selves can integrate all of their life episodes into a better unified and continuing theme than others.

Thus, narrative interview is a research method aiming to achieve the insight of what we study through ‘the kind of organizational scheme expressed in story form’ (Polkinghorne 1988, p. 13). Polkinghorne (1988) argues that this may not only include the result of the process such as stories, tales or life histories, but also the process of making a story as well as the cognitive scheme of the story. Scholes (1981) defines that a narrative is a story with a beginning, middle and end. However, it is more than just points in time as Mishler (1995) suggests that we also need to recognise boundaries of a passage, that is ‘to “opening” and “closing” that give a stretch of talk or text a unity and coherence’ (p. 91). Much literature defines further that a story pursues a chronological sequence that arrange the events through time (Labov and Waletzky 1967, Polkinghorne 1988, Reissman 1993). In addition, Bruner (1990) emphasises that a narrative is composed of a unique sequence of events, involving human beings as characters or actors. Apparently these events are only given meaning in terms of their place in the whole sequence. Yet, while narratives unfold in time, the order is more than simple sequence but reveal a sense of the whole (Ricoeur 1984). Moreover, a narrative is one way of providing meaning of a divergence. Bruner (1990, p. 49) elaborates that ‘when you encounter an exception to the ordinary, and ask somebody what is happening, the person you ask will virtually always tell a story that contains reasons’.

To encapsulate the debate around the definition of narrative, Denzin (1989, p.37) proposes the following definition: A ‘narrative’ is a story that tells a sequence of events that are significant for the narrator and his or her audience. A narrative as a story has a plot, a beginning, a middle and an end. It has an internal logic that make sense to the narrator. A narrative relates events in a temporal, causal sequence. Every narrative describes a sequence of events that have happened. Following the definition of narrative, Reissman (1993) describes ‘narrative analysis’ as an act of investigating the story being told by research respondents. Its purpose is to grasp how respondents make sense of the events and actions in their lives. Polkinghorne (1995) also defines narrative analysis as the use of stories to depict human experience and action. Ultimately, narrative analysis aims to uncover the meaning of such experience and actions.

NARRATIVE: PRINCIPLES AND IMPLEMENTATION

As narrative interview aims to grasp one’s experience and its meaning through one’s story, it is crucial that the interview is conducted to elicit a respondent’s personal narrative – an idiosyncratic story that emerges from a respondent’s point of view (Langellier 1989). Reissman (1993, p. 2) elucidates a personal narrative as ‘a recapitulation of every nuance of a moment that had special meaning’. Hence, it is important to ask the right kind of interview questions in order to generate a narrative (Mishler 1986, Reissman 1993). Mishler (1986) recommends that an unstructured interview

June 24-26, 2007 2 Oxford University, UK 2007 Oxford Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 978-0-9742114-7-3 is more likely to produce a story since such an interview format allows research respondents to give freer responses. Reissman (1993) suggests that the kind of open questions that would bring out narratives should be broad. For example, it is better to ask a broad question such as ‘Tell me about your new car’ as opposed to a more specific question like ‘When did you buy your new car?’ Basically, we should take on an interview guide with a few questions relating to the research theme, supplemented by probe questions in case the respondents have difficulty bringing about their narratives. Examples of probe questions entail a question such as ‘Can you tell me more?’ or ‘Can you give me some examples?’ Additionally, probe questions may be used not only to enhance the stories but also to initiate narration (Reissman 1993).

To conduct the narrative interview effectively, the interview session should be scheduled at a mutually convenient time to avoid distractions or interruptions. It is vital that the respondents feel at ease and unhurried. Importantly, the interview should be carried out in the proper environment which encourages an atmosphere of relaxation and trust. A one-to-one interview is best as privacy makes the respondent feel more relaxed. The present of the third person, even a close associate like a partner, can inhibit or influence forthright discussion. The interview site should be quiet enough to comfortably hear what the respondent is saying. Audio or video recording is essential in order to utterly get hold of the narrative; however, be aware of a chance that the recording equipment may intimidate the respondent. Thus, compact and sensitive equipment is recommended. Ethically, the respondents must be informed that his/her story is being recorded. Taking note is also needed to record non-verbal data such as facial expression or body language.

To commence the interview, the interviewer should try to establish rapport with the respondent (Fontana and Frey 1994). First, the interviewer should explain the purpose of the interview to the respondents. It is significant to emphasise that the interview aims to achieve insight from the respondent’s viewpoint (Spradley 1979). Allow the respondents to be themselves. The good interview should flow naturally, spontaneously and vividly. Over-preparation (e.g., preparing a script) potentially ruin the merit of the narratives. Primarily the interviewer should make an effort to get the respondents to talk. The interview should begin by ‘breaking the ice’ with general conversation, then gradually move on to interview inquiry (Fontana and Frey 1994). Initial interview question should be phrased in a loosely structured and non-directive manner (McCracken 1988) as discussed earlier in order to encourage emergent narratives. Follow-up questions should be spontaneously formulated during the course of the interview as the respondent narrates her/his experience, thoughts and feeling. The interviewer should be sensitive and listen to the respondent carefully and try not to interrupt. Probe questions should be used to explore motives and multi-layered meanings.

Although the respondent is asked to tell a story of his/her own experience, it is not uncommon that he/she may not be able to recount some complex and paradoxical phenomena utterly. Polkinghorne (1995, p. 18) comments, “the problem confronting the researcher is to construct a display of the complex, interwoven character of human experience as it unfolds through time.” Indeed, even the enthusiastic and articulate respondents may have difficulty in narrating the multiplicity of their selves and experiences verbally during the course of the interview. Accordingly, McCracken’s (1988) suggests the use of “auto-driving” as a supplementary method to generate narratives. Auto-driving is a strategy that helps to foreground and materialise aspects of the respondents’ experience that are “otherwise difficult to bring into the interview” (McCracken 1988, p. 36-37). For example, when we want the respondent to recount his/her identity, we may ask him/her to make a collage of who he/she is (see Picture 1), then we use the collage to carry out the narrative interview. Pictures are also powerful auto-driving. For instance, the respondent may be asked to bring along his/her childhood or old pictures to generate narratives about his/her nostalgic consumption. Sometimes we can also ask the respondent to talk about his/her favourite possessions.

Picture 1: An Example of a Collage

After the interview, the interviewer should take time to thank the respondent and discuss his/her consent to publish the research. It is essential that we respect the respondents’ privacy. All materials and the respondents’ personal information being used in the research (e.g., interview transcripts, pictures or collages) need to be taken into ethical considerations (Fontana and Frey 1994).

To conduct narrative analysis, much literature suggests the analysis focus on the story as object of investigation, the purpose of which is to see how the respondents make sense of the events and actions in their lives (Polkinghorne 1995, Reissman 1993). A phenomenological approach (Thompson et al 1989) should be adopted to explore the respondent’s personal experiences and her/his constructed reality of meanings. There are various approaches being used for narrative analysis (Langellier 1989, Mishler 1995, Polkinghorne 1995, Reissman 1993). Mishler (1995) asserts that there is no exact way to scrutinize narratives. According to Langellier (1989), there are five theoretical stances of narratives that we may employ in narrative analysis. That is personal narratives may be viewed as story text, as story performance, as conversational interaction, as social process and as political praxis. The stance of narrative as story text focuses on looking at the relationship between the properties of the narrative to their functions (i.e., referential and evaluative). As story performance, narrative analysis considers the linguistic and literacy features and dynamics of the storytelling performance. To explore narrative from the conversational interaction perspective, we may adopt conversational analysis proposed by Sacks (1986). From the position of narrative as social process, we need to recognize that storytelling is embedded in larger social processes. Lastly, we should be aware that rights to use narratives may be unequal among groups in society. Mishler (1995) advises that narrative analysis embraces three main categories: reference and temporal order, textual coherence and structure and narrative functions. Polkinghorne (1995, 1988) also maintains the analysis approach based on narrative function. The focus here is on the plot of a story which reveals “the organizing theme that identifies the significance and the role of the individual events (Polkinghorne 1988, p. 18).” Polkinghorne (1995) elaborates further that narrative analysis can be carried out through two modes of inquiry. One is the paradigmatic mode and another is the narrative mode. The paradigmatic mode of narrative analysis shifts from particular stories (i.e., sets of interviewed data) to common themes that cut across all stories, including characters and settings, to generate general concepts. The narrative mode uses plot to bring together individual experiences in order to produce the context for grasping profound meaning of the respondent’s experience. Basically, these two modes of narrative analysis not only produce an understanding of each respondent’s narrative but also address the differences and similarities across all narratives. In order to comprehend the narratives profoundly, it is essential that the researcher is receptive to the respondent’s cultural background and is aware of the contextual features of the interviewed story (Polkinghorne 1995). Understanding the respondent’s language and the socio-linguistic perspective of the interview is critical

(Emden 1998, Hirschman and Holbrook 1992, Mishler 1995). Simultaneously, the analysis should pay attention to discursive and rhetorical aspects of the narratives used by the respondent to elucidate or reinforce the meaning of the stories (Bennett 1986, Labov and Waletzky 1967). This includes use of metaphors, word or idea repetition, direct quotations, and variations in the tone or style of storytelling. To prepare the interview data for narrative analysis, the researcher should have all audio- recorded interviews transcribed verbatim, not only the exact words from the interviews but also some other conversational cues like laughing or sigh. Analysing narratives is a problematic process. It requires a lot of resources and imagination in order to strive to understand the others (Geertz 1988). Since certain narratives may embrace the submerged stories of contradictions, inconsistencies and divergencies, analysing the culturally embedded narratives requires “an ability to watch for inconsistencies, contradictions and misunderstandings and to make theoretical interpretations of them” (Willis 1980, p. 91). Essentially, the analysis may require reading and re-reading the interview data in order to grasp and develop provisionally thematic categories and meaning-based linkages among the narratives. This analysis process is conducted in iterative fashion in which a part of the narrative text is analysed and re-analysed in relation to the developing sense of the whole (Spiggle 1994; Thompson 1996; Thompson et al 1994). Ultimately, narrative analysis aims to achieve the profound and multifaceted comprehension of the respondent’s experience, thoughts, feelings and actions.

TRUSTWORTHINESS OF NARRATIVE RESEARCH

When we conduct a research, there is a need to determine how far the research findings are believable, accurate and useful (Creswell 1998). Traditionally, particularly in quantitative research, the research reliability and validity is assessed to justify its quality. However, can assessing reliability and validity of qualitative research like narrative interview and narrative analysis be possible? Endeavouring to ascertain the rigour of the qualitative research, some scholars propose the criteria to evaluate its reliability and validity through trustworthiness of the procedures and data generated (Stiles 1993, Lincoln and Guba 1985; Wallendorf and Belk 1989). To establish research trustworthiness, they suggest several research techniques such as profound engagement, researcher’s reflexivity, respondent’s feedback, triangulation, or independent audit (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Wallendorf and Belk 1989).

In narrative interview and narrative analysis, its trustworthiness depends on the eminence of its interview and analysis procedure as well as its features such as the respondents, the researcher/interviewer, the interview questions, the transcriptions and the analysis. It is vital to choose the right respondents – the ones who embody narratives of experience which can answer the research questions. As the interview is obtained from the respondent’s own words, it is considered valid (Appleton 1995). However, distortion can arise through the interview and analysis process. The researcher and interviewer must have enough familiarity with the interview data to be able to see it from the respondent’s perspective. The researcher’s profound engagement with the respondent’s socio- cultural background (e.g., understanding the language) increases the likelihood of attaining the “experience-near1” (Geertz 1973) – the insider’s view or the respondent’s perspective of reality. Nonetheless, the researcher who is familiar with the respondent’s socio-cultural background may overlook certain nuances and ambiguities of data. Therefore, it is also important to maintain the “experience-far” (Geertz 1973) – the outsider’s view, so that we hold an ability to perceive the phenomena studied with the naïve ears (not the objective ears) that will not take things for granted (Wallendorf and Belk 1989).

While reliability and validity of quantitative research puts emphasis on the researcher’s objectivity, trustworthiness of qualitative research like narrative analysis ironically embraces subjectivity. Apparently, endeavouring to be ‘objective’ may limit our ability to grasp the complexity of human experience (Agar 1980). Willis (1980, p. 91) explains, “If we wish to represent the subjective meanings, feelings and cultures of others, it is not possible to extend to them less than we know of ourselves. The ‘object’ of our inquiry is in fact, of course, a subject and has to be understood and presented in the same mode as the researcher’s own subjectivity - this is the true meaning of ‘validity’ in the ‘qualitative’ zone.” To manifest this issue, the researcher should acknowledge his/her subjective judgement through the process of ‘reflexivity’ (Wallendorf and Belk 1989, Willis 1980).

1 The concept is similar to the “emic perspective,” but is viewed in a more relative term. Geertz develops these relative concepts of “experience-near” and “experience-far” to revise the dualism of “emic” and “etic” cultural categories (Marcus and Fischer 1986).

Although high-quality research often aims to get beyond the respondents’ own understandings of their experiences, trustworthiness of narrative analysis can be enhanced by their feedback (Lincoln and Guba 1985, Wallendorf and Belk 1989). This refers to the practice of researcher sharing interpretations with the respondents. By this, the respondents can check, amend and provide feedback as to whether the interpretations are well-substantiated accounts consistent with their experience (Bryman 2001). Basically, the narrative analysis process should involve democratic interactions between the respondents and the researcher in order to attain some sorts of mutual dialectical creation of meanings (Hirschman and Holbrook 1992). Nevertheless, as we deem the narratives as socially constructed, we should allow multiple and contradictory interpretations to emerge (Atkinson 1990, Ricoeur 1976). In fact, in order to grasp the complexity and inconsistency of the texts, we are encouraged to strive for “conscious pluralism” in pursuing our research (Morgan 1983). That is, we should undertake the interpretive process that “does not assume any one answer to explaining consumer behaviour, on one single solution, but approaches consumer culture expecting to find multiple meanings and a rich construction of reality and illusion beyond the merely rational” (Elliott 1999, p. 121).

Triangulation is also another technique to enhance research trustworthiness (Lincoln and Guba 1985, Wallendorf and Belk 1989). Triangulation represents the combination of two or more data sources, methods or researchers. Wallendorf and Belk (1989) encourage triangulation since it not only enhance the research credibility but also generate a multiplicity of perspectives on the behaviours and contexts of the phenomena. Thus, adopting various modes of narrative analysis is recommended. Nietzsche (1967) asserts the more perspectives the narrative analysis, the richer and deeper the interpretations and knowledge. Triangulation across researchers would enrich the understandings of the phenomena being studied as each researcher brings his/her viewpoint to extend the interpretations. Holt (1991) also acknowledges that triangulation can improve the quality of the interpretation and thus attain increased trustworthiness in the eye of the reader. Indeed, the concept of ‘trustworthiness’ is socially constructed and hence its justification depends on the interpretation shared within a particular interpretive community.

Lastly, the narrative research is trustworthy when its interview and analysis procedure as well as its data can be audited and verified by other researchers (Lincoln and Guba 1985, Wallendorf and Belk 1989). Hence, keeping journals on decisions made throughout the research process provides an opportunity for the project’s assessment. Additionally, central to the research assessment is the accuracy in interview recording and transcribing. Qualitative data analysis software such as NUD●IST may be used to standardise interview transcripts. However, Burton (2000) cautions that an over- emphasis on standardisation can separate the data from its context so much that it almost becomes meaningless.

REFERENCE

Agar, M. (1980), The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography, New York: Academic Press. Ahuvia, A. (2005), ”Beyond the Extended Self: Love Objects and Consumers’ Identity Narratives,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June), 171-184. Appleton, J. (1995), “Analysing Qualitative Interview Data: Addressing Issues of Validity and Reliability,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22, 5, 993-997. Atkinson, P. (1990), The Ethnographic Imagination: Textual Constructions of Reality, London: Routledge. Bennett, G. (1986), “Narrative as Expository Discourse,” Journal of American Folklore 99, 415-434. Bonsu, S. K. and R. W. Belk (2003), "Do Not Go Cheaply into That Good Night: Death-Ritual Consumption in Asante, Ghana," Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (June), 41-55. Bruner, J (1990), Acts of Meaning, Cambridge: Havard University Press. Bryman, A. (2001), Social Research nMethods, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burton, D. (2000), Research Training for Social Scientists, London: Sage. Coyle, Adrian (1992), "My Own Special Creation?: The Construction of Gay Identity," in Social Psychology of Identity and the Self Concept, ed. Glynis M. Breakwell, London:Academic Press Limited, 187-220. Creswell, J. (1998), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Denzin, N.K. (1989), Interpretive Interactionism, London: Sage Publication. Elliott, R. (1999), “Symbolic Meaning and Postmodern Consumer Culture,” in Rethinking Marketing: Towards Critical Marketing Accountings, eds., D. Brownlie, M. Saren, R. Wensley and R. Wittington, London: SAGE Publication, 112- 125. Emden, C. (1998), “Conducting a narrative analysis,” Collegian 5, 34-39. Firat, A. Fuat and Alladi Venkatesh (1995), "Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of Consumption," Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (December), 239-267. Fontana, A. and J. Frey (1994), “Interviewing: The Art of Science,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds., N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, London: SAGE Publications, 361-376.

Gabriel, Yiannis and Tim Lang (1995), The Unmanageble Consumer: Contemporary Consumption and its Fragmentations, London:SAGE Publications. Geertz, Clifford (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures, New York:Basic Books. Geertz, Clifford (1988), Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author, Cambridge:Polity Press. Gergen, Kenneth J. (1991), The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life, USA:BasicBooks. Giddens, Anthony (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge:Polity Press. Harre, Rom (1998), The Singular Self: An Introduction to the Psychology of Personhood, London:SAGE Publications. Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Morris B. Holbrook (1992), Postmodern Consumer Research, Newbury Park:SAGE Publications. Holt, D. (1991), "Rashomon Visits Consumer Behavior: An Interpretive Critique of Naturalistic Inquiry," in Advances in Consumer Research Vol. 18, ed. Rebecca H. Holman and Michael Solomon, Provo, UT:Association for Consumer Research, 57-62. Joy, A. and J. Sherry (2003), “Art as Embodied Imagination,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (June), 259-282. Labov, W. and J. Waletzky (1967), “Narrative Analysis: Oral Version of Personal Experience,” in Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, ed., J. Helm, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 12-44. Langellier, K.M. (1989), “Personal Narratives: Perspective an Theory and Research,” Text and Performance Quarterly 9, 243- 276. Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Egon G. Guba (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA:SAGE Publications. Mattingly, C. and M. Lawlor (2000), “Learning from Stories: Narrative Interviewing in Cross Cultural Research,” Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 7, 4-14. Marcus, G. and M. Fischer (1986), Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences, London: University of Chicago Press. McAdams, Dan P. (1997), "The Case for Unity in the (Post)Modern Self," in Self and Identity: Fundamental Issues, ed. Richard D. Ashmore and Lee Jussim, Oxford:Oxford University Press, 46-78. McCracken, Grant (1988), The Long Interview, London: SAGE Publications. Mishler, E. G. (1986), Research Interviewing Context and Narrative, London: Havard University Press. Mishler, E. G. (1995), “Models of Narrative Analysis,” Journal of Narrative and Life History 5, 87-123. Morgan, G. (1983), Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research, Beverly Hill: SAGE Publication. Muniz, A. and T. O’Quinn (2001), “Brand Community,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March), 412-432. Nietzsche, F. (1967), The Will to Power, New York: Random House. Penaloza, L. (2001), “Consuming the West,” Journal of Consumer Research 28, 369-398. Price, L. E. Arnold and Curasi (2000), “Older Consumers' Disposition Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research 27, 179-201. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988), Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences, Albany: University of New York Press. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995), “Narrative Configuration in Qualitative Analysis,” in Life History and Narrative, eds., J.A. Hatch and R. Wisniewski, London: The Falmer Press, 5-23. Reissman, C. K. (1993), Narrative Anaysis, London: Sage Publication. Ricoeur, P. (1976), Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning, Fort Worth: The Texas Christian University Press. Ricoeur, P. (1981), “Narrative Time,” in On Narrative, ed, W. J. Mitchell, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 165-186. Ricoeur, P. (1984), Time and Narrative, Chicago:Chicago University Press. Ricoeur, P. (1992), Oneself as Another, Chicago:Chicago University Press. Rose, R. and S. Wood (2005), “Paradox and the Consumption of Authenticity through Reality Television,” 32(September), 284- 296. Rosenwald, G. and R. Ochberg (1992), Storied Lives: The Cultural Politics of Self-Understanding, New Haven:Yale University Press. Sacks, H. (1986), “Some considerations of a story told in ordinary conversations,” Poetics 15, 127-138. Scholes, R. (1981), “Afterthoughts on Narrative: Language, Narrative and Anti-narrative.” in On Narrative, ed., W. Mitchell, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 200-208. Spiggle, Susan (1994), "Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 491-503. Spradley, J. (1979), The Ethnographic Interview, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Smith, B. (1981),”After Thoughts on Narrative,” in On Narrative, ed., W. Mitchell, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 207-231. Stiles, W. (1993), “Quality Control in Qualitative Research,” Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 6, 593-618. Tian, K. and R. Belk (2005), “Extended Self and Possessions in the Workplace,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32(September), 297-310. Thompson, Craig J., Howard R. Pollio and William B. Locander (1994), "The Spoken and the Unspoken: A Hermeneutic Approach to Understanding the Cultural Viewpoints That Underline Consumers' Expressed Meanings," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 432-452. Thompson, Craig J. (1996), "Caring Consumers: Gendered Consumption Meanings and Juggling Lifestyle," Journal of Consumer Research, 22, (March), 388-407. Thompson, C. and D. Haytko (1997), “Speaking of Fashion: Consumers’ Uses of Fashion Discourses and the Appropriation of Countervailing Cultural Meanings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24(June), 15-42. Thompson, C. and Z. Arsel (2004), ”The Starbuck Brandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences of Glocalization,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December), 631-642. Wallendorf, Melanie and Russell W. Belk (1989), "Assessing Trustworthiness in Naturalistic Consumer Research," in Interpretive Consumer Research, ed. E. Hirschman, Provo, UT:Association for Consumer Research, 69-84. White, H. (1981), The Value of Narrativity in the Presentation of Reality,” in On Narrative, ed., W. Mitchell, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1-24. Willis, Paul (1980), "Notes on Method," in Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-1979, ed. Stuart Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe and P. Willis, London:Hutchinson,

June 24-26, 2007 7 Oxford University, UK