Joel Manfredi

English 5870

Dr. De Vries

Journal #8

In reading “Imagining Educational Research? on the Uses of Fiction in Autobiographical Narrative Inquiry” by Allison Pryer, I again found myself agreeing with most of what she said in her paper.  It is very refreshing to hear that our own memories or our personal accounts of a situation are not only valid, but wanted when it comes to research.  It is inevitable that we, as researchers, have subjectivity in our studies, and it’s refreshing to hear that that aspect of our research is okay.

Specifically focusing on the writings of memoirs, Pryer validates the need of subjectivity in research.  She says, “Memoir is necessarily a selective interpretation of life: it is never complete, and is always partial and tentative”(9).  I love this because it makes it “okay” to realize that as we as human beings are constantly evolving until our deaths, we are unfinished, creating, and “partial.”  We’re never (or should never be) at a point of idleness when it comes to life and meaning.  That way, when we write our research down on paper, we can realize that what we have seen as “life” is our interpretation of living, and therefore unique.  Quoting Timothy Findley, Pryer says, “Truth slips in through whatever doorway it can find”(9).  This statement is very accurate concerning what we see as truth, and what someone else sees that is different when viewing the same thing.

Pryer states that writing and reading are one in the same when it comes to literacy.  Basically, when someone writes something, not everyone who reads it will have the same reaction, or even the same interpretation of what was said.  Pryer says, “Rather, the content of a memoir drifts like a desert sand dune.  With the shifting winds of each reader’s participation, the dune changes shape, texture and even position”(10).  The “shifting winds of each reader’s participation” is a great metaphor for her point here.  All writing should inherently create a feeling in the reader of some sort of relation, but that relation is specific to the individual reader.  That is what is so great about this paper when it comes to ethnography; that we can assume that what we say will be seen in many different ways and that is a powerful tool, not something of which to be afraid.

Pryer goes on to talk about the differences between monological and dialogical texts.  She says, “Monologism, at its extreme, denies the existence outside itself of another consciousness with equal right and equal responsibilities”(10).   Conversely, she goes on to state the benefits of a more dialogical approach to research.  She says, “Recognizing that words are relational tools, ‘two-sided acts,’ the writer of the dialogical text is more able to bring people into sensuous contact with one another”(11).  In doing my own ethnographic research, I prefer to be on the dialogical side of things.  I believe it is the only way to not only report my findings, but to also be open to learning more as I go. And a lifetime of learning is the best way to remain young until our inevitable deaths.